Awliya

Awliya (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
More Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by User:ari89

The accounts appear to have all been created after Awliya became involved in a content dispute, and have only edited (repeatedly reverting to Awliya's contentious edits) the articles of the disputes.

On the new account The Well Wisher
I think these are important considerations.

Ari (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have been accused of being a sock-puppet of user 'Awliya'. I do not see how I have any relation with him. If anyone can help during this procedure that would be most comforting. The Well Wisher (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you have been accused of being a sockpuppet either. You seem nothing like Awliya - in other words, innocent. Looks like you will have to wait until Jeff5102 replies to your message. Forentitalk 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Forenti. What methods are being used to detect if I am a sock-puppet? Thanks. The Well Wisher (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The duck way. --Bsadowski1 10:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most edifying. The Well Wisher (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ari please read my response to your second post:

Point Number 1 - I did address the issues that you suggested on Awliya's page. I took your ideas and merged them with the proposed systematic layout of Zakir Naik by Awlia which seem to be more representative of Naik's biography than a mis-mash of his biography under a single heading. Therefore I had a choice between choosing your's (or Jeff's) or Awliya's version. I am wondering if the other users on this page would agree with me.

No, you did not. As we can all see, issues such as the commentary that was specifically quoted by myself found its way into your reversion. --Ari (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. Please visit the article discussion page. The commentary that was 'specifically' quoted by you is no where found in my version of the reversion.
As we can all see, you restored the commentary - including that which was specifically quoted. --Ari (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point Number 2 - I do not understand what you mean by 'canvassing' editors, and creating 'arbitrary' lines while making comments. If you are describing the way I format, yes I do insert spaces between paragraphs or remarks to introduce clarity. I am an English language student, and follow certain standards of writing.

No, I am talking about how you and the confirmed sockpuppet editors above both contacted editors you have had no contact with. On the line issue, both you and the confirmed sockpuppets make use of a line break in commenting.--Ari (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'editors' you speak of could be located on the history page of edits and reversions on the Zakir Naik page. Please stop associating me with the 'sock-puppets' above.
It's just so easy when you exhibit their behaviour. If you don't want to be viewed as a sockpuppet, leave the article for a few days instead of jumping right in to restore edits that multiple editors have objected to. --Ari (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point Number 3 - I am open to being contacted on article pages. I am fairly new here and do not understand the Wiki system in its complete totality. After observing other editors discuss their problems on your talk page I thought that perhaps that was the best way to resolve issues, personally and diplomatically. I didn't know, I just joined today.

And both you and the confirmed sockpuppets ask to be contacted personally instead of talking on the discussion page. --Ari (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I witnessed others on various other editors' talk pages and incorrectly learned that was how to resolve an issue.

If I've arisen suspicion then what other way can I defend myself? Is there a method through digital means to verify my identify? Thank you. The Well Wisher (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With easy access to a proxy, the fact that your behaviour is concerned with restoring the blocked user's content while reflecting their unique characteristics would be the important data. Ari (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the merged version, that tied in your and Awliya's version, is better viewing for the public. I would like the others to decide my integrity on this issue. I just joined today and this has already become very disconcerting. --The Well Wisher (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I also believe these accounts are sockpuppets of Awliya. Just by looking here, they seem to be supporting each other quite suspiciously. Not only that but, I have rarely seen a user sign their comment after a line break, let alone two users together in the same section. Just by the way they format their comments, it seems pretty obvious to me. Forentitalk 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously something suspicious here regarding the recently added The Well Wisher. The Well Wisher's first edit was to revert straight back to the contentious edits (with a false claim to having addressed the issues when it was a simple reversion). They exhibit a number of similar traits -such as canvassing editors they have had no interaction with, and arbitrary lines while making comments. They both insist on being contacted via user talk pages and not on article pages. The two edits on other articles are minor such as changing a single word, yet on Zakir Naik they are insisting on a rewrite. --Ari (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Jpgordon got most of these with a checkuser. The Well Wisher was created after the checkuser, but quacks well enough for me. Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



21 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by User:Jeff5102

The accounts appear to have all been created after Awliya and the other socks of Awliya became involved in a content dispute, and have only edited (repeatedly reverting to Awliya's contentious edits) the articles of the disputes. See the history of the Zakir Naik-article.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

How dare you accuse me of being someone I'm not. Check my I.P, and afterwards leave me alone and stop associating me with someone I'm not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbonline (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


06 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by User:ari89

This editor is edit warring the exact same content as Spine.Cleaver. Spine.cleaver is a confirmed sockpuppet of Awliya. Around seven sock puppets have been confirmed as belonging to Awliya[1] and have subsequently been blocked. The disruptive edits of these sockpuppets are consistently on the article Zakir Naik. This editor created an account, immediately requested reviewer rights before making any edits (which evidences this isn't their first account) and has only edited the article that Awliya/Spine.Cleaver/The Well Wisher/Deenfitrah/JohnnPhilip and other confirmed sockpuppets edit. Their idiosyncrasies are consistent with the confirmed sockpuppets such as failing to indent, drawing lines between posts, making the same threats, etc. Furthermore, all their edits have been in edit warring the same content as the already confirmed sockpuppet Spine.Cleaver. --Ari (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note It looked the user was playing along at first, and then he went right back to the exact same actions the old socks made. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 07:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More