Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walid562/Archive

21 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same Islamist POV-pushing and poor grammar as Walid, same calls to censor the article, particularly any picture of Muhammad. The IPs definitely either belong to the same person, or group of people (maybe a household) working in tandem. See where one IP responds to the message left for another IP before the other IP leaves that message on my page, and their work at Islam in South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Chuvash people. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: Septate has attempted the censorship that the IPs have been calling for. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

15 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Please can we also do a check user on Edmondhills. Notice how in this edit Septate's edit summary says "the image is totally irrelevant", whereas in this edit Edmondhills's edit summary says "‎Irrelevant image".

The Edmondhills appears to be reacting either to a message on Walid562's talk page, or to the edit summary for the previous edit, which said "undid revision 598897285 by Walid562 (talk) if you want it removed, use the article talk page as I suggested on your talk page".--Toddy1 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

10 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In this edit and this edit, both users attempt to censor the Islam article, removing a picture while claiming that Islam rejects iconoclasm/aniconism. Iconoclasm and aniconism are synonyms referring to religious rejection of images. It's hard to believe that two different editors would completely get that word absolutely wrong when making the same edit. Both have comparable (bad) grammar ( or with ) and have been pushing Islamic POVs. There are differences in when the accounts started, and I believe they are really socks for some third other as-yet unlocated account. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Septate repeats the same tired argument about a picture that happens to be hosted at zombietime.com that Walid would not stop rehashing over and over at Talk:Islam. Only Walid has not gotten that that argument is totally dead, even folks who agree with Walid about the picture in question (e.g. Wiqi55), have pointed out that it's wrong.  There's no reason why someone else would use the same argument.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yes I have Islamic point of view and that's why I made that edit. But believe me I really don't know this term(iconoclasm). I got this term a few days before this edit when I was reading a hub about Ivan the terrible. It states that Ivan was against "iconoclasm in Russian orthodox church". I really don't know how walid got this term but believe me, I really don't have any connection. I think he has made this edit on article Islam. But I don't know weather he is a mobile user or not. My dispute was cleared by talking with another user. This can be just a coincidence. If I would be really his sock then I am not so made that I write the same edit summary after making the same change or edit. This just be coincidence.Septate (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument that they are the same convincing.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted the nonconstructive edits from this user almost 1 week ago. And I have to agree with both Toddy1 and Ian. User is here to promote anti-hindu bias, and it is apparent in both suspected socks.,. Noteswork (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of Toddy1's evidence regarding Edmondhills (thanks for finding evidence, I had suspected but didn't have anything at that time), I have revised my above report because I'm not sure that any of them is the master account (who I'm becoming increasingly doubtful as to whether we'll find). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Given the evidence of cross-over between the accounts and the denial I think the best way to solve this will be with CheckUser. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ as far as I can see. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action per CU result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)