Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abdullah bahajri

User:Abdullah bahajri

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Avi (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * General
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabian_Gulf&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabistan&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-estan&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_Gulf/Archive_6&action=history
 * Diffs
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-estan&diff=prev&oldid=208037854
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersian_Gulf%2FArchive_6&diff=208035838&oldid=196130642
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArabian_Gulf&diff=207741330&oldid=207640324

I was approached on my talk page to look into these three editors and their relationships, if any. There seems to be evidence that Abdullah bahajri is Egyption 4eva. However, I do not think there is any clear evidence about Lebanese heart. Regardless, I wanted another set or two of eyes on this before any further sanctions are performed, if necessary. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Comment - the edits of the user "Egyption 4eva" don't appear to be soapboxing, and in fact seem to offer a fairly cohesive, reasoned argument. Are one of the socks and indef banned user or in some way violating policy? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:SOAP comes to mind. Also, the nest of links at the bottom is an issue. Regardless, only one account should be used to edit these articles; sockpuppetry is not allowed even if the arguments are reasoned, I am afraid. -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I get that. However, out of the different kinds of soapboxing, only the second kind
 * "Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics."
 * seems at all close to the point of the edit. However, were we to apply SOAP to every article discussion (and not article) to that litmus, the articles about Iran, Anti-(insert nationality or ethnic group here) Sentiment articles, or about disputes involving regional disputes would be empty. The post in question does not violate SOAP in that while it is a post the history of a term, it doesn't offer opinion. It offers facts. That it is posted in two different articles that are currently deep in discussion of precisely the nomenclature issues that the post addresses is immaterial. That it is presented fairly, reasonably and intelligently is.
 * Of course, if the user is editing inappropriately through several accounts and backing up their own edits or is secretly an indef banned user, we have no choice but to block. I would like to suggest that if this is a user mistake, that they be given the opportunity to drop the other ads and edit through one account and one only. I have no tolerance for socks, but most of that intolerance comes from sock trying to abuse the system for an advantage. That doesn't appear to be the case here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (<-)If this is a mistake and not a banned user, then only the puppets will be indef blocked, and the master may either be short-blocked or warned. -- Avi (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed this user's soapboxing tonight, so I did some research of my own on the history of the pages this user seems interested in, and I found a banned user with near-identical interests and editing scope as the suspected sock puppets here. --Sia34 (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the blocked troll (from Sia34's post) to the list of suspects. I personally don't see any connection to the "interests and editing scope" from a 5-day troll from over a year and a half ago. SSP is not a fishing expedition. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I took a look with CheckUser, based on a request. ✅ Abdullah bahajri = Egyption 4eva = Lebanese heart. They appear to be using open proxies. (Arabistani is too old to check.) Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)