Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zouaoui16/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
This is to provide a more permanent place than the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) to synch with d:Wikidata:Project chat, as this goes back to 2016. I have seen on-wiki evidence on the English Wikipedia connecting all these, in the edit histories of deleted and non-deleted articles, drafts, and templates. Explicit deleted some of these.

The common behaviour is edit intersection on articles connected in one way or another to the name "Bouskahi". Although the main obvious point of intersection is the Boushaki article, evidence that (unlike that) cannot be dismissed as coincidental is particularly clear from the drafts (in draft-space, user-space, and sandboxes) and deleted articles that these accounts are the primary contributors to. Just some examples: There are intersections at other non-deleted articles, too, including at Zawiyet Sidi Boushaki, Brahim Boushaki, Amine Boushaki, and Yahia Boushaki (Shahid). Wikidata missed Ssoussou, blocked for sock-puppetry and machine-translated gibberish at the Polish and German Wikipedias, which intersects Authentise, Soufismo, Friedrich20, and Kalimoun at Mohamed Seghir Boushaki. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Zouaoui16, Authentise, and Kalimoun intersect at User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki.
 * Tidjani, Soufismo, and Authentise intersect at Abderrahmane Boushaki.
 * Tidjani and Authentise intersect at Shahnez Boushaki and at Feriel Boushaki.
 * Friedrich20, Authentise, Sufismo, Lofton05, Robocopat, and Kalimoun intersect at Sidi Boushaki.

Other sockpuppets from Wikidata
This sock-puppetry has been spotted on other language Wikipedias, Wikibooks, and on Wikidata; and there are reams more evidence on those projects, apparently. See also User talk:Zouaoui16 for where this was spotted years ago. Many of the above and below accounts have already been blocked as sock-puppets on other projects, or even globally locked, per their global contributions logs (q.v.).

I haven't reviewed most of these, but I observe intersections of the reviewed sock-puppet accounts with Acildz at Mohamed Rahmoune, for example. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated
Authentise and Kalimoun also intersect at Mustapha Ishak Boushaki; and (note the minus sign) was created by Zouaoui16 at 2017-02-05 09:03:37. The latter was in its first deleted versions a copy of the Neils Bohr article, and Zouaoui16 removed the speedy deletion request for this falsification nine times. (Wikidata also points out similar copying of the Albert Einstein article.) However, we should not be attaching this to that article subject. These accounts exist and are credibly all one person: But I am inclined to believe xyr explanation (Special:Diff/1092841388 Special:Diff/1093166442) that xe came to this in 2021, well after the aforementioned sock-puppetteer started trying to have an article on this in 2017. Xe did try to blank what some of the sock-puppetteer had written in the biography and objected to the sock-puppetteer's Boushaki cosmological operator (Authentise) article. User:Cullen328 blocked xem for having an account in a real person's name. In retrospect, this seems a bit unfair: Come to Wikipedia to fix something that someone else has been writing about you there for 4 years; get blocked for being honest about who you are. Moreover, there is clear off-wiki evidence who is, which excludes that account from either being Mustapha Ishak Boushaki or the sock-pupetteer. The named person associated with that account does not deserve to be sucked into this whirlpool, given that xe nominated User:Cjayross/Mustapha ishak boushaki for deletion, just as Mustapha Ishak Boushaki does not. The on-wiki edit history fits the off-wiki evidence. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2023 (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

 * , are you looking to accomplish something specific here, or can this be marked as closed as essentially a pro forma? Of the accounts in the primary list above, only and  remain able to edit, and both of those accounts would be stale. Izno (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's primarily to have an SPI case to point to when this comes back again, as it seems likely it will, along with notes about the unrelated accounts that otherwise might be swept into all this if someone else comes upon this afresh in the future. I think that I didn't set the asking for checkuser flag in the template.  But it was a rather large edit.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did not. If you're not looking for anything other than documentation, I will mark this as closed. Izno (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)