Tarook97

Tarook97 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

09 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Loaka1, edit warring on Moors, was clearly not a new user, as CU confirmed: Swazzo is the same, and this confirms it. El Bass is a brand-new account, kept in reserve I suppose. I would like for a CU run it again and see if I missed any accounts--there's a ton of IPs and I checked a half dozen or so. In addition, I wonder if there are any useful rangeblocks to be made. Finally, it seems to me that this is older than Swazzo (October 2017), and I'm hoping that someone's institutional memory will have something to offer. Pinging as involved one way or another: CambridgeBayWeather, Soupforone, Doug Weller. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Tarook97 might have been a predecessor. Batternut (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having interacted with Tarook97, I would have to agree with Batternut. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what CU can do, but IP's 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:10FE:3EC2:C129:2E5F and 51.235.157.155 might be interesting, for their choice interventions. Batternut (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarook97, Loaka1, and Swazzo: do you control any other accounts not yet admitted? Batternut (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Batternut, that is entirely possible: thanks. CU, there's one little edit within the scope of our magic glasses. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  • High overal editorial overlap. Though they are both new accounts, created very shortly after each other (Nabataeus was created on 18 October 2017, Frasfras17 was created on 28 September 2017), both are evidently fixated on trying to "Arabize" a huge number of dynasties/historic persons with origins in the ME or NA. They both do this the exact same way; by misinterpreting sources or, more commonly, using unreliable/self-published sources (few examples; [2]-[3]-[4]-[5]).
  • Target articles are within the exact same scope.
  • Both are actively involved in trying to create a big, happy "Arab family", which would include any Muslim scholar of the Medieval era, regardless of origin. In other words; a pretty severe irredentist campaign; [6]-[7]
  • The Editor Interaction Utilizer shows a high number of overlap.[8] Quite a few of these articles are so-called extremely low-profile articles.
  • Nabataeus and Frasfras17 write their references the exact same way.[9]-[10] Note that both have only been editing for 5 months.
  • Frasfras17 and Nabataeus have shown to support each other on the same articles;[11]
  • Both basically never write edit summaries

In short; massive, structural WP:OR / WP:VER / WP:POV violations in a very short period of time, by two "new" users, with the same writing style and same overal concerns, on the same articles. Oh, and I'm convinced the IP (95.184.127.24]) must be his. The IP added a source to the the lede of Saints Cosmas and Damian, without edit summary, in order to claim the historic figures in question as "Arabs". Nabataeus, a few hours later, then added another source, to the exact same article, in exactly the same style, to the same spot in the lede.[12] In terms of technical evidence; the IP geolocates to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Frasfras17 and Nabataeus have both displayed, on numerous occassions, that they are from Saudi Arabia (the Google.books links they use reveal this; [13]-[14]).

Pinging @Aṭlas:, @Kansas Bear:, and @Wario-Man: for they have displayed similar concerns about the editorial conduct of said users. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:. Yeah, right. My bad;
  • Editor Interaction Utilizer shows high amounts of overlap between the three (Tarook97, Frasfras17 and Nabataeus) on numerous key articles;[15] Especially the amounts of overlap on ridiculously low-profile articles is, once again, quite peculiar to say the least. Articles which received no more than 50 edits in the span of some 5 years, for example.[16]
  • In late July-September 2017, blocked sockmaster Tarook97 added "Arab" to the lede of Abo of Tiflis, as well as an Arabic transliteration (in front of the Georgian transliteration). Both edits were added without edit summary. On 10 March 2018, Frasfras77 added the "Arab Christian saints" category to the article, without edit summary.[17]
  • On 2 April 2017, Tarook97 added "Arab" in front of "ibn al-Haytam" on the Camera article.[18]. On 8 March 2018, Frasfras17, did exactly the same.[19]
  • On 20 March 2017, Tarook97 added a link to the Byzantines on the Tayy article.[20] On 10 March 2018, Frasfras17, added the "Arabs in the Roman Empire" category to the article.[21]
  • On 10 October 2017, Tarook97 added the "Arab culture" template to the Kitab al-Aghani article.[22] On 8 February 2018, Frasfras17 added the "Medieval Arabic literature" category (literature = part of culture, i.e. part of the same ridiculous POV he's trying to spread everywhere) to the article.[23]
  • On 23 April 2017, Tabook97 made a maintenance fix to the Qasr al-Hayr al-Gharbi article.[24] On 7 March 2018, Nabataeus did the same.[25]
  • On 1 August 2017, Tarook97 changed "Muslims" into "Muslim Arabs" on the Emirate of Sicily article.[26] On 27 October 2017, Nabataeus added the "History of the Arab States" template to the same article.[27]
  • Similarity in usernames (Tarook97 and Frasfras17)
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added one more proxy IP to the case. Same type of edits, conveniently aided Nabataeus by using the same POV. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have no idea that I was being discussed, shouldn't I receive a heads up? I usually browse user contributes (am I guilty of stalking?), and my first exposure to Fras I believe was in Awwam article. For example when Fras made a wrong edit in Qedar here[28] I revert it, the ruins don't belong to the Qedarite period (since I am well acquainted with the subject).

As for the IP, yes it's me. I edited the page when I was logged to my PS4. I don't believe editing while logged off violate any Wikipedian policy? and how I don't add edit summaries? when most of the time I do (maybe except in Talk pages).

@LouisAragon: @Kansas Bear: @Wario-Man:

Nabataeus (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is my only account here on Wikipedia. The Admins could easily check the IP and see for themselves. That is to refute your accusation of sockpuppetry.

As for my contributions, I confess most of them are Arab-related topics. Is that a charge here? The Arab section in English Wikipedia is lacking in both content and sources, let alone its problems of bias and prejudice. I have created here several Templates from scratch like, Template:Arabic historians Template:Arabic literature, Template:Arab culture. If anything, I should be thanked, not getting rebuked for it!

Also, I do provide comments for my edits most of the time. Only when the edit is self-explanatory or understandable I don't.

That being said, I admit that I had committed some violations regarding copyrights policy, for which I got banned temporarily, apologized, and never committed again. Being a new member, I was not fully aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so they were mistakes out of ignorance and not intended. And maybe once, I misrepresented the content of a source which I later replaced after being notified of my mistake. Other than that, I don't acknowledge committing any wrongdoings nor having any agenda. Frasfras17 (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per EIA result, the min time between their edits is close on articles like Awwam, Template talk:History of the Arab League member states, Qedarite, Julia Domna, and Template:History of the Arab League member states. It could be random and the two reported users may have nothing to do with each other. Because I have participated in Template talk:History of the Arab League member states and it seems Frasfras17 and Nabataeus do not look like a sockpuppetry case in my opinion. BUT what LouisAragon has mentioned in his report could be a sign of sockpuppetry or WP:MEAT. Because if the two users have similar edit pattern or POV and they target same topics, then I don't think it's random. I have no idea about the sockmaster Tarook97, his edits, and how he's related to the two reported user. Because I had no interaction with Tarook97 as much as I remember. Other editors could explain the similarities between the behavior of these three users. User:Aṭlas and User:Kansas Bear are more familiar with this case than me. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding your claim that I want to "Arabize" historical figures, that is also false. A quick look at my contributions, you will see that I, myself, have even deleted unsourced Arab categories in articles like [29][30][31][32][33]. Frasfras17 (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i don’t know if this can help, but user:Nabataeus was engaged in an edit war here : Ismail al-Jazari. More, he began removing reliable sources like René Grousset replacing them by a Venezuelian historian specialized in the history of Venezuela (Faria) here : Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. His goal was, again, the removal of possibly Persian ethnicity...

Farawahar (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabook edit was in 2017 while mine was recent. And it was not maintenance. I was looking for free licensed photo of a Ghassanid tower to include it in the Ghassanid article, and when I found it, it was wrongly represented as an Umayyad period structure. So I deleted the file and replaced it with actual Umayyad period remnant from the site.

  • On 1 August 2017, Tarook97 changed "Muslims" into "Muslim Arabs" on the Emirate of Crete article.[36] On 27 October 2017, Nabataeus added the "History of the Arab States" template to the same article.[37]

Emirate of Crete is of Muawllad origin, IIRC. Therefore I wouldn't include it as an Arab dynasty. I believe you meant Emirate of Sicily, the two edits are far off and insufficient to make any correlation.

Nabataeus (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot, thanks for the remainder. In that page Fras deleted the Shirvanshah from the template without consensus, therefore I restored the former version and addressed him about the nature of the template. Plus the Qedarite example where we had antithetical stances per my initial post. Must be a severe case of schizophrenia.

BTW, we should take in consideration that many browse users contributions, that's how I stumbled upon this page, and how also Farawahar found himself in here to accuse and transfer irrelevant dispute to a sockpuppetry page.

Nabataeus (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Nabataeus and Frasfras edited the same Talk page within a few hours...

Farawahar (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That truly pissed me off, I expressed my concerns in his talk page[38]. Not sure why he thought it was a good thing. Nabataeus (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was even edited by Nabataeus AND Frasfras within a few minutes...

Farawahar (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ You said that already, you could just edited your post to correct the time gap.

Anyway this post will be dedicated to answer the rised concerns.

"Arabize" is quite the term, I didn't change someone's ethnicity based on my own perspective. Only Khwaja that I deleted his ethnicity primarily for the absence of sources that state he was Persian.

That's vague. Are we prohibited from editding Arab related articles? Of course we would both edit the same articles few times. There are multitude of articles that I want to improve, but I refrain from doing so for the sole reason of Fras former edits in the articles, merely to distant myself from being associated or affiliated with him. It's getting annoying. Apparently it didn't bother Fras, as suggested by his cautious-less post in Mubariz talk page or other articles I noticed he edited e.g. Petra Theater, article I made.

Okay, now that is a serious accusative remark: Creating Arab family regardless of origin. Please, go a head and tell me where my edit (Taifa of Seville) stand? Is the origin of the dynasty disputed or was the Cambridge published source per your criteria unreliable? Did I violate WP policies by including Arab historical states template in an Arab dynasty? Or you simply didn't have examples to illustrate your points? Please cite your opinion.

That's quite few, if you take in consideration that most of them are engraved in Arab culture. Except for et-Tannur and Petra theater maybe. I am sure if we take a Persian editor he will show even greater overlap with your account. Just to illustrate my point.

There's online tools for google books citation. Very handy.

No. Not sure how you concluded I supported him. You might want to look at the talk page.

Oh, no. I do except in talk pages.

I absolutely didn't know what his edit was until I saw the difference between revision. From his other contributions, apparently he edited the Arabs article and added citation needed in the claim that the Nabataeans were Aramaic speakers of mixed Amoraite (people who ceased to exist centuries before the Nabataeans) Aramaean and Arab ancestry. It appears to be styled similar to Palmyra article. It saved me the trouble of reading the wall of text to find wrong informations. And furthermore what POV? Nabataeus (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the same articles, Nabataeus and Frasfras keep editing and POV pushing in the same way on Wikipedia, one example among many others here ... Farawahar (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frasfras17 and Nabataeus edited here and here about the same person (Zakariya al-Qazwini). Farawahar (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ehsan iq where another Baghdadi Iraqi IP was involved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabataeus suggests with this edit that were aware of WP:OWNTALK. This seems a bit suspicious as I can't see where in the edits they would have come across this knowledge unless they were a previous editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very suspicious. It was not like I didn't see admin and veteran user's talk pages deleted entirely, or [49] where you said it was alright. And how you found a correlation between me and the Iraqi editor is absolutely beyond me. Nabataeus (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only said it was alright after you had done it which means that you already knew about it. You may have seen admin or veteran users do it but I have no evidence for that. The correlation with the Iraqi editor is with the IP here, unless you just admitted that you are a sock. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could see my old posts on Green's page, his page was deleted afterward with my comments. Here's your evidence[50]. It don't need high IQ to figure it out. As for the last part, I refuted the claims of sock accounts, you just came up with new accusation without sufficient evidence. Nabataeus (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That page not deleted, it is right here User_talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive_10#Question_about_photos. I have not commented on your IQ but it seems like you have not figured this out. It is not for us to decide if the accusation has sufficient evidence but the SPIs/CU's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Let them check. Nabataeus (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you Jbh, I am sorry I bothered you in those two incidents! But it was enjoyable discussion actually so I don't regret it. It make me comfortable to know neutral editors who know a great deal about Medieval MENA history exist.
As for the sock, I don't know how I got dragged into this. If it worth anything, I absolutely have no other account except for this one. I first noticed a user called Fras in Awwam article that I camped in. Nabataeus (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabataeus: You did not bother me at all, my apologies if I gave that impression. I have found your questions and perspective interesting and enjoyable. I am still looking into Umayya and I have no problem if you ever want my opinion on other questions. The only criticism I have of your behavior is that I have seen you sometimes go overboard when engaging with others on talk pages. I have no issue at all with your behavior in our interactions. Jbh Talk 23:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: the problem with Nabataeus is that he is here to push Arab claims and he often blatantly edit war with numerous users to achieve his goals. A few examples among others if you want to check what i say :
[51] : edit warring agaisnt Kansas Bear and me and what for ? To bombard the article with unreliables sources to push his POV ...
[52] : edit warring against me (i was also edit warring agaisnt him which clearly was a mistake) and by the way this is again an article edited by Frasfras17/Viaros17 and Nabataeus.
[53] : He removed “Arab speaking father”, replacing it by “Arab father” but while he knew that the source also states “Kurdish mother” and not “Kurdish speaking mother” he did not correct the Kurdish part. (please note that user:Arabos is a sock of Ehsan iq and perhaps Nabataeus and Frasfras17/Viaros17, have a look at Emir’s post above).
Last but not least, You already know about Nabataeus’ edit warring with Emir of Wikipedia ...
If this is what you call “constructive” then i think that your definition of that word differs from mine.—>Farawahar (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, however, in the two cases I have worked with him he has been more right than wrong and has been willing to accept compromise when provided with alternate sources. For instance I disagree with him about the reliability of a source at Umayya ibn Abd Shams but I agree that it was being used to support a violation of NPOV. See this version of the article where an anti-Umayyad adoption claim was placed as the first thing said about the subject and the but other people say follow on strongly implied that it was widely held rather than being propaganda which, as I understand it, traces back to a single contemporary source (al-Kalbi).

The other article related an ethnicity of "Persian or Arab" but the bulk of the sources related that the family claimed to be Arabs who settled in Khorasan. Yes, everyone who wanted status then claimed Arab ancestry; Yes, the supposed immigration was hundreds of years prior; But the family claimed Arab decent not Persian and that is what the bulk of sources I could locate said about ethnicity.

I would assume that most Wikipedia editors who are drawn to less well covered figures in Islamic history are going to have a POV which slants, in broad strokes, Arab or Persian, Sunni or Shiite and they are likely to feel strongly about that perspective. I am making, the perhaps unfounded, assumption that Nabataeus and probably some of the other editors are Muslims from the Middle East/North Africa region or at least have very strong cultural ties there. I think that is an incredibly valuable perspective to bring to Wikipedia — not only from being able to access sources in the original language but also by bringing an understanding of history and context that most Wikipedia editors simply do not have. That intimate familiarity can often bring with it, at a minimum, the belief that the history one learned is the correct history. This is true no matter where one grows up — just ask Americans from different regions about the American Civil War.

We all have a POV about things we care deeply about it only is a problem here if it becomes disruptive and the editor is unwilling or incapable of moderating their behavior. I think there is a pretty good argument that Nabataeus has been disruptive but I also see he is capable of moderating his behavior and willing to work constructively. I have seen him reach out to editors like GreenMeansGo when he feels at an impasse. Further he has 337 edits. I do not think any of us had a good grip of WP:NPOV editing when we had 337 edits. He says he did not sock and I will take him at his word. I will also say that if he did sock and sticks to his current account from now on the most I can do is summon a hearty… meh. Wikipedia editing takes time to learn, particularly how to moderate one's passions.

I hope I have not caused offense with my generalizations but they do inform my judgment here and I think it proper to make that clear. All said, Nabataeus, if you find yourself at an impasse you can take the issue to one of the noticeboards, WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:NORN etc, or you can always ask me for help. I can not say I will agree with your position, in fact I nearly always start from the assumption that experienced editors are correct, but, in the cases I have dealt with, you have had good points and I think the articles were made better from your input. I also suggest that you watchlist the noticeboards I mentioned, follow the threads there and maybe browse the archives some to see how the community applies those policies. One thing I do if I edit about anything I have strong feelings about is consider the interpretation of policy most likely to exclude/disallow what I want, and most likely to include/allow what the other party wants.

Well, this is more than I was going to write when I set out, maybe it will do some good. Apologies to the SPI clerks. Jbh Talk 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) • forgot to ping Farawahar Jbh Talk 17:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

To push Arab claims! Then please explain to me your behavior, why you changed al-Kindi from Arab (strongly sourced) to Persian [54], then you misinterpret a source in Mubariz al-Din article to include your unsupported and OR Persian origin [55], also you removed al-Qazwini from the Arab list to re-include in the Iranian list. Really? How I am the guilty one here. You can't get mad that your POV in al-Kindi article, or others for that matter, was dealt with accordingly. As for the last, I really don't care about it unless it reflect the source, neither did I notice the Kurdish part. I supported the removal of both Arab and Kurdish claims since the source is unreliable[56] Nabataeus (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 « and has been willing to accept compromise when provided with alternate sources. »
Has he any other choice ? The guy is under an SPI and is strongly accused of edit warring, could he keep going this way and ignore alternate sources ? More, I showed you above how he ignored my source in the Al kindi article (this source is used for the ethnicity of many other scholars on Wikipedia (Sharaf al-din al-Tusi, A-Karaji ...). It is Encyclopædia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures.
« Further he has 337 edits. I do not think any of us had a good grip of WP:NPOV editing when we had 337 edits. »
Let me see if i got this straight. So, according to you, one can edit war, POV edit articles, bombard articles with unreliables sources to push his POV, etc ... as long as his editing experience is not too long ??? I would suggest you to go and tell that to all the users with less than 100 edits who got blocked for edit warring or broking other rules of Wikipedia. I can’t believe that an experienced user like you can say such a nonesense.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The admin explicitly said it "should be okay" (not okay or reliable) and advised you to provide additional sources if it is disputed, since it is a tertiary reference. An admin in the RSN, you should therefore act according to his statement. Do you want me to quote him? Other than that, all you have said is thin air accusations. If you have a problem go to the admin noticeboard, I am sure they will help you if what you said has the minimum truth merit. Have a nice day. Nabataeus (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabataeus: Of course i can explain you. Again, Al-Qazwini is a Persian with Arab origins, he has his place in the Persian list.
Muzaffarids are a Persian dynasty, so is Mubariz al-din, even if he has « distant Arab origins ».
And finally, the source provided for Al Kindi is above and is reliable.
If i wanted to push Persian claims, i would not have that kind of edits : [57] or [58], while, as far as i know, you have not made a single edit with providing new sources to support another ethnicity than « Arab ».
Also, since the Kurdish part was immediatly next to the Arab one, your statement « neither did I notice the Kurdish part »  sound to me like nothing else than a lie OR it confirms what i just said : you’re here for Arab claims and only for them. If you supported the removal of the source from the article then you had to remove it instead of marking it with your bias. Hope to have been clear this time and since anything you and me have said and done is in print and can be verified by anybody, i’m done with you here.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quote wathever you want. Also, your statement about tertiary sources being not very reliables is wrong (one more time).
Tertiary sources are reliable sources (example:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, Britannica ...), when they qualify as reliable sources (ie. publisher/author/content). Just as secondary sources are reliables, when they qualify.—>Farawahar (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course i can explain you. Again, Al-Qazwini is a Persian with Arab origins, he has his place in the Persian list.
I objected on your removal of al-Qazwini from the Arab list, despite numerous sources stating he was an Arab.
  • If i wanted to push Persian claims, i would not have that kind of edits : [59] or [60], while, as far as i know, you have not made a single edit with providing new sources to support another ethnicity than « Arab ».
The first one you added "Persian"[61] and you deleted it when your source was challenged. Quite ironic. The second one: sources are already provided.
  • Also, since the Kurdish part was immediatly next to the Arab one, your statement « neither did I notice the Kurdish part »  sound to me like nothing else than a lie OR it confirms what i just said : you’re here for Arab claims and only for them. If you supported the removal of the source from the article then you had to remove it instead of marking it with your bias.
From memory, in the old version it don't state Arabic speaking father. I agreed with Kansas on removing any mention of his ethnic background. This was after my edit.
  • Quote wathever you want. Also, your statement about tertiary sources being not very reliables is wrong (one more time). Tertiary sources are reliable sources (example:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, Britannica ...)
The admin is the one who emphasized on the tertiary part. Tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam could be easily verifed by secondary sources. Provide additional materials per the statement of the admin. I am also done here. Nabataeus (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@LouisAragon: You've provided evidence that the two suspected socks may be operated by the same person, but I don't see any attempt to tie either of the users to the master or his confirmed socks. Also, Nabataeus is already mentioned in the archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because LouisAragon has provided additional evidence as requested, I put the status back to CU. By doing so, I'm not endorsing a CU or saying anything about the persuasiveness of the evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Significant article overlap between Thenabster126, and Tarook97 and their confirmed socks:

  1. Tarook97 and Thenabster126: 11 common articles], mostly related to Arabs and the middle east.
  2. Swazzo and Thenabster126: 13 common articles all related to Arabs and the middle east.
  3. Musicfan122 and Thenabster126: 6 common articles
  4. Javiero Fernandez and Thenabster126: 4 common articles
  5. Loaka1 and Thenabster126: 2 common articles both related to Arabs and the middle east. - MrX 🖋 22:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
24 articles common to Thenabster126 and Tarook97 (or one of Tarook97's confirmed socks)

Very similar proportions to edits to article space, talk, templates, etc. Also to Commons and Wikidata:

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have edited other articles besides Middle East-related articles. I have never heard of this account until now.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
More