Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiemirati/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I want to report this user. when Graull joined wikipedia, immediately he created blank page in his user page and user talk page this already looks suspicious to me then they made these edits in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula these edits dont look like if this is a new editor.When I asked him about whether he is a new editor or not he said he has been editing using IP. The main thing about these edits is that they pro-UAE shows that if the UAE is fighting against Al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. I started to feel like if this is Wikiemirati. After that he made several edits related Yemen-UAE issues. I didnt believe this editor was using IP to edit because all of his edits are in these areas which are in my watchlist and yet no IP I have seen editing that area like that. He voted in Houthi movement talk page like if this is not the first time he voted in a RfC. He has made edits in the same area where Masgouf has edited: Graull: Masgouf: (Cabinet of Yemen article has 2 edits since Masgouf got banned; it is very inactive.) Both Graull and Wikiemirati want to remove Al-Qaeda from the infobox; Wikiemairati: Graull: Also there is this "=/=" Wikiemirati: Graull:  SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello. The previous ip edits that I remember are from the following addresses: 45.61.15.106 + 172.58.27.164 + some more from Toronto and Edmonton which I don't remember. I live in Edmonton, Canada and been traveling in Canada as well as on a holiday recently. I mainly edit using a phone which is US based (At&T). I am not a Muslim lol (sharabsalam seems to think I'm Saudi or UAE Muslim), but interested in middle east politics since I'm writing an article about Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula and USS Cole bombing for my University (of Alberta). I am currently visiting the Emirates for holiday which is probably why sharabsalam is suspicious and fighting against me (I have some ip addresses edits here but I don't remember them) I am not the only user who contested adding AQAP as allied to Saudi/UAE as taking a quick glance in talk page in yemeni civil war articles and page history shows multiple other people talking about it and being reverted by sharabsalam. Other users who contested this are jay942942, panam2014, banak, kudzu1 among others (my quick search found those names in the archive). I would like to ask sharabsalam to please leave me alone and not bully me and pester me as this is honestly getting annoying. He has attacked my opinion on Rfc and seems that he is trying to bully me. My edits on AQAP seems to be making him uneasy when I am simply adding information regarding operations against AQAP using neutral sources. He has demonstrated this immediately during my edits on AQAP page, which he reverted directly until I explained to him that its a reliable source. Please let me edit wikipedia without annoying me. I am not pro Saudi or against the Houthis. I'm simply adding information I think are important against AQAP I have found during my research. Thanks Graull (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌. You are editing in a very controversial area of the project. I caution you to stop editing logged out. Depending on the types of edits you make, a pattern of such edits may result in a block for socking. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you. I made this wikipedia account so my IP dosent get known publicly. I will remember to log in from now on. Thanks. Graull (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * 1) Approximately one in four edits made by Gorebath are on pages edited by Wikiemirati and the sock Masgouf. (Update: I did not check for overlap between Gorebath and the Wikiemirati socks User:Chefpurin, User:Primdena and User:Atomsedits)
 * 2) The last confirmed Wikiemirati sock was banned in March 2020. Gorebath's first edit was in July 2020. Gorebath's 4th edit was to "revert unexplained change" on a page that WikiEmirati had edited a lot. Gorebath's early edits show an awareness of Wikipedia lingo and policies (new editors usually don't have this awareness).
 * 3) The sockmaster and suspected sock have in common that they add staunchly favorable content for Gulf regimes, in particular the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. One persistent theme is to remove any content about human rights violations in those countries.
 * 4) Both have in common that they cite the same (sometimes obscure) policies in edit summaries: MOS policies, wp:blpstyle, WP:LIBEL, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKE, WP:COAT, and WP:CHERRY. They write double question marks, and list things as "1st" and "2nd" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Edits where Gorebath updated the exact content that the sockmaster initially added: 1, 2, 3. Making virtually the same edit: 1, 2, 3 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Additional evidence (April 2022): Gorebath makes nearly the exact edit as one of the confirmed socks: January 2020 Marib attack. Gorebath updates very similar content as the confirmed socks: Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan+Women in the United Arab Emirates Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is an absurd request and most likely motivated by bad faith as evident by my recent undoing of Snooganssnoogans edits likely in an attempt to discourage me from any further undoing of his edits. The reasons given are illogical.


 * 1- Most of my edits are in areas of the Arab world and particularly the Persian Gulf region and the United Arab Emirates, it would not be surprising that my edits would be in pages done in someone who's username indicate hes from the region whether banned or not. There's literally multiple years of difference compared to my edits.
 * 2- Emirates Mars Mission was a mars probe which was launched in 20th of July 2020, my edit come after 5 days due to it being a news featured article. Reading WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER is not rocket science and any new user can read these pages prior to editing.
 * 3- Most of Snooganssnoogans edits in the area of the Gulf countries was to add controversial political statement and accusations to countries who's political system he does not agree with, clearly evident by his usage of the word "regime" in multiple of his edits. A lot of users have trouble accepting many of his controversial additions to multiple political systems which do not follow his liberal political point of view as evident by his talk page comments history. A difference in opinion should not be used as a basis to attack another user. This would not be the first time as it is preceded by snooganssnoogans involving me in an WP:ANI about another user and literally asking other users for support by "helping to clean up pages related to rich corrupt authoritarian countries . This is clearly a content dispute.
 * 4- All those policies are cited by multiple users using this platform to make valid edits, more so when there's a dispute regarding content and should not be a surprise for someone to cite them during a content dispute. Snooganssnoogans himself used the same policies to argue for his edits and point of view. An edit comment using double questions marks "??" or listing changes is not a strong argument or evidence to open sock puppet investigations on users as multiple users use questions marks and list changes in their edit comments. Gorebath (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have experienced nothing but belligerence and unilateralism in engaging with Gorebath. My own willingness to edit some Gulf topics have been restricted by the sheer pushback and knowledge of wikipedia policy and usage of said to counteract my edits. Considering the age of mine and Gorebaths accounts, I found the gap of familiarity with policy astounding. IP says (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is comical coming from you as some one who has been actively stalking my edits and participating and !voting against me in multiple pages and in disputes with snoogansssnoogans within minutes, which I have warned you before for wikihounding and now is clearly seen in this tool (thanks snooganssnoogans for showing me this page).. account age is not correlated with familiarity of wiki policy as clearly the number of edits and most importantly user discussions, in which we have a difference in, plays into account. Besides, when your every edit is being scrutinized by the same person, you're forced to learn some wikipolicy to have them back off like in your case. Gorebath (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 5- Another attempt to accuse me.. the edits are literally no were similar. Since when was updating outdated information added 2-3 years ago was a basis for a sockpuppet investigation? Apart from being the same article you're so desperately trying to find a smoking gun evidence in, there is no consistency in the edits. In fact, some edits are outright opposites. Gorebath (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Look like a duck to me, the editor interaction clearly shows the same edit preferences of the Banned editor and this suspicious account. Also the difference in time between the ban of Wikiemirati and Gorebath is a year. Wikiemirati was blockled on 20 July 2019 and Gorebath created his WP account on 25 July 2020. To make thing more fishy one edit summary by Wikiemirati and Gorebath looks the same in the Second Lybian Civil war article.

Wikiemirati: "More Neutral source" Gorebath:"Replace with other secondary/neutral sources" Mr.User200 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These edit summaries are not similar, neither are the edits themselves. I am not the only one who ever cited WP:NPOV or said that TRT is not reliable in certain geopolitical context, particularly with France during when French-Turkish relationship on Libya was on the news in September 2020, when Erdogan warned Macron with a "Don't mess with Turkey". This is sounding more and more like canvassing. Anyways, I request a checkuser put this matter to rest. Gorebath (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit summary and the objective of its edits are a clear indication that we are talking about the same person. More proofs; Wikiemirati edit in Mars Mission Gorebath edit on the same article Both accounts have the same editing behaviour and have the same article preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here's more proof that at least four other socks did the same edit, they must all be my sockpuppets.   . This is getting tiring, sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse hence I'll let them do their job. I have nothing to hide. Gorebath (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamzin my editing content is revolved around various Gulf states as well as the middle east, including their history, culture, passports, space programs, militaries, women, cuisine, dancing, entertainment, movies, politics, and disputes as well as any recent news related articles that revolve around these countries. I have used the edit history of multiple editors who edit in similar subjects to look for articles to expand on, this includes user wikiemirati but also expands to users such as user:alexandermcnabb, user:Emir of Wikipedia , user:UA3 , whom I have noticed their contributions on the subject, admired their additions, and attempted to expand on the articles they have edited. I have not attempted to copy their edit summaries, pretend as a sock or a meat puppet of any of these accounts. Here are some diffs which show my edits which were additions on content initially started or persuaded initially by one of these editors. You're free to run your own analysis on my edits compared to these accounts, my guess is that you will find similarities with the same behaviour you're advocating for my block on based on wikiemirati. Here are some edits which are similar to the other accounts

1-, 2-  , 3- , 4-  , 5- , 6-  , 7-, , 8- , 9- , 10-

The only thing I am guilty of is using these accounts contributions to contribute further on Wikipedia. I've never interacted with any of them to sock or meat sock. Many obscure pages (such as Nabati (12 users)) edited with limited user count include these editors as we share the same subject of interest. I still maintain my innocent of not being a sock of wikemirati. If I am to be blocked based on an account misuse by another user, it would be for sharing similar interests to edit wikipedia in an area that has few editors actively interested in clearing up misconceptions. I would rather be blocked for using these accounts contribution history to edit articles as that would be something which I have done. Other than that, I have no control of my geolocation IP or data obtained from my editing location. I have not moved. Gorebath (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamzin I will definitely contest an unfair block, and go as far as the arbitration committee to clear my name. I am not guilty until proven innocent. I have openly stated I used the above users edit history in Gulf related topics to look for content to edit or update. This does not make me a sockpuppet. Reading on wikipolicy, previous discussions and editing in the same article in the same field of interest is not a sole reason for blocking me because an editor who's contribution's I've looked at previously has misused wikipedia and got hismelf banned. Sockpuppets are editors who use an alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus WP:ILLEGIT. I have not done anything of that such. From Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else". This is a witch hunt that started from a content dispute in which multiple users whom I've disagreed with in wikipedia had been carefully nitpicking every edit I've done in my contributions in effort to get me banned as a sockpuppet. To suggest that I technically should be blocked, but because someone else more rational might see an insufficient evidence hence you're not getting blocked now is really not appropriate and is just a sign that this is truly a show trial and a future threat. There's either hard evidence for my block or not, this is why technical information is essential to call people sockpuppets and ban them. Otherwise, any two users editing the same content or making the same edits will get banned and opens up the platform for administrative abuse. Of course I see myself back here in the future. Any user I disagree with in the future in content will definitely open another sockpuppet investigation to have me banned and off the wikipedia page. This will definitely be used against me in the future and will undoubtedly be called again in every content dispute. I am not a sockpuppet and will continue to fight for my innocence. Gorebath (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sorry that this has been pending so long. There's a lot to sift through. My conclusions are:
 * Last things first, Mr.User200's evidence is not particularly persuasive.
 * Snooganssnoogans' evidence, however, is. The only parts I'm not persuaded by are the MOS citations and the "1st"/"2nd" diffs.
 * Some of the pages they overlap in citing are relatively obscure—not dreadfully so, but not the sort I see routinely in my own experience. In particular, WP:BLPSTYLE has only 584 backlinks. Yes, that doesn't count edit summaries, but it shows that it's not a very oft-used shortcut.
 * The "??" thing has only the slightest probative weight, though.
 * Point 5 might be the most damning. It's really hard to look at those diffs and not conclude that this is someone following up on work they started on a previous account. Another instance of this can be seen at General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history.
 * A look at the EIA shows overlap on rather obscure topics even stipulating that they're active in the same topic area, for instance the passports of various Gulf states, the movie The Worthy (2 out of 20 editors ever to it), the movie City of Life (39 editors ever), the dilpomat Lana Nusseibeh (16 editors), and the weapon dance Yowlah (60 editors).
 * As always, in any complex behavioral case at SPI, I turn to the two burdens that must be met: "It is likely that this is a sock" and "It is unlikely that this is not a sock". The former is clearly met here. The null hypothesis for the latter would be that these editors overlap a lot because they edit in the same topic area, and use similar edit summaries either by chance or, maybe more plausibly, because Gorebath saw Wikiemirati summaries in page histories and they rubbed off on them. I don't think I buy that hypothesis. For starters, the topic area overlap isn't just Gulf politics, but also to a lesser extent Middle Eastern entertainment and Middle Eastern culture in general (Yowlah, Omani cuisine), and even within the topic of Gulf politics they're winding up on the same relatively obscure pages, like those listed above and Document on Human Fraternity (37 editors) and CAR 816 (38 editors). More generally the shared interests in passports and visas and the space program and military materiel... Add it all up and I just don't buy it as coincidence.All of that being said, some more certainty would be nice. Assuming that the most recent log data is from two years ago, I don't think there's any way for CU to clearly say that Gorebath isn't them, since in two years they may well have moved; however, if a check in comparison to the log data for Atomsedits shows some level of likelihood, that would be helpful here. So ; if the answer is "technically unrelated" I'll still tend toward blocking.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous accounts are all stale and the log data can only tell me that the IPs used by Atomsedits and by Gorebath seem to geolocate to the same country. Salvio 09:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Salvio. Ugh. This really is right on the margin, behaviorally. pending a second opinion from Firefly, who has kindly agreed to take a look.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Firefly for a consult here. After some discussion, I think we're in agreement here that a) it would be not-unreasonable to block Gorebath as a suspected sock, but b) if Gorebath then appealed that block, the evidence might be seen as insufficient upon review. I think Gorebath is a sock. It's well more likely than not—we sometimes say that 90% is the lowest confidence level it's ever okay to block at, and this is basically at exactly 90%. I would rather see this user blocked once and have it stick, than see them blocked, unblocked, and be that much harder to block later. With that in mind, I am closing this as not proven. I expect we'll be back here in the future. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)