Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Islami


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Islami

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

See this edit. Cuñado  -  Talk  18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Probably it is one of your meat puppets. The first edit and the third edit proves that. --Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Report submission by:Proabivouac 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidence


 * Truthpedia answers for Islami on Template talk:Islam18:44, 30 October 2006 then changes the section header to obscure his slip-up.23:06, 30 October 2006
 * The discussion should be open to everyone who is involved. --Truthpedia


 * Both have taken interest in several of the same articles, including Salafism, Template:Islam, Jizya, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ma'bad al-Juhani, and a large number of similarly obscure articles, in many or most instances advancing the very same edits (e.g., )
 * That interest is limited to very few articles of the total contribution of both editros. Template:Islam is a very visible article that is included in most Islam-related articles. The dispute in it was over the Salafism article. And through the last I came to Ibn Taymiyyah's article (my only edit has nothing to do with Islami's). As for the Jizya article, I have received an email from an active Muslim member asking me to help other Muslims against references removal.--Truthpedia


 * Both have advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints, such as the notion that Islam may be usefully divided into Salafism and Sufism, and that Salafism dates from the time of Muhammad’s companions:,, , ,
 * So?? This is the same view that is shared by millions of Salafis around the world. Check any Salafi web site on that. Add to that they both believe the sun sets in the west :) Common facts cannot be called "advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints" --Truthpedia


 * Both use idiosyncratic four hyphens to sign into mediation regarding images of Muhammad:,.
 * What a great evidence!!! By the way, they are different :) --Truthpedia

No, my fisrt edit was a link removal. However, that (first edit on the Salafism article is a revert) clearly applies on Proabivouac, a person who is known to be a sock puppet (see his/her talk page). --Truthpedia
 * Truthpedia’s very first edits were reverts, with summaries indicating a familiarity with Wikipedia and with specific ongoing disputes on Salafism.
 * Truthpedia’s edit times are consistent with an account only available during working (or school) hours M-F in one prominent western country. Islami sometimes edits during this time, but also and most often until the expected bedtime of the real-world user, and during weekends.
 * Despite what appears to be a significant level of coordination, neither has found occasion to edit the other’s talk page.
 * There is no coordination between me and any other member, except the one that asked for my help in Jizya (he is not Islami), and it was one email too.--Truthpedia


 * If the same user, he has recently violated the three revert rule on at least Salafism:
 * version reverted to:01:50, 6 November 2006
 * first revert:20:02, 6 November 2006
 * second revert:22:44, 6 November 2006
 * third revert:05:07, 7 November 2006
 * fourth revert:05:26, 7 November 2006
 * and Jizya:
 * version reverted to:22:28, 25 October 2006
 * first revert:19:27, 27 October 2006
 * second revert:20:19, 27 October 2006
 * third revert:20:25, 27 October 2006
 * fourth revert:00:15, 28 October 2006
 * fifth revert:05:52, 28 October 2006


 * Comments

No attempt has been made to drag up old 3RR or other violations.Proabivouac 11:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) --Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The accusers are organized meat puppets. See this:
 * Striver offering a blind revert
 * Cunado19 offering reverting services to any page
 * He ran out of reverts so he ask his friends to revert for him
 * Here, he is asking for a blind revert as a type of friendship
 * A blind revert a pleasure to Striver
 * Note - the outcome of this may be relevant to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, where both users have signed up as indicated above and the potential exists for meatpuppetry. Neither user has commented at the mediation, only signed up. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this makes sense, i did feel some kind of surge of like minded editors, but did not think more about it.... --Striver 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just on the verge of investigating the same possibility before Proabivouac did this. I have been reverting Salafism and Template:Islam almost daily for more than 20 days. The edits and comments of the two editors are almost identical, and they conveniently allow one of the users to avoid 3RR every day. Cuñado  [[image:Bahai star.svg|20px]] -  Talk  18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They are different and not 'identical'. They only thing that both users share on Islam Template is the inclusion of Salafism. As for the Salafism article, you were trying to revert a well-written article (was written by different users over a long time) by your own biased version without even addressing that on the talk page. Many users have reverted your changes, not only me.

Sending to CheckUser on 3RR grounds. Interests and contributions logs are suggestive, but not sufficient proof by themselves. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Closing without action. Truthpedia and Islami have each made many contributions to the Wikipedia, so could be considered safe under the "100 edit" rule of thumb, but that is not a firm rule. They do end to edit Islam-related subjects, but then so do many other editors. Their edit times don't overlap, but that doesn't prove or exclude anything. They don't edit each others' talk pages, but then they don't edit many user talk pages at all - total of about 2 other user talk page edits for Truthpedia, about 5 for Islami. Truthpedia clearly was not a novice at the time of their early edits, they were already familiar with Wikipedia methods - but that doesn't necessarily make them a sockpuppet. The hottest debate seems to be on Salafism, and, frankly, there the issues are too arcane for me to understand. I tried to send this to CheckUser, but it (Requests for checkuser/Case/Islami) was denied as too long in the past. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)