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:Klaksonn[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Ten months ago, Klaksonn was blocked due to his persistent incivility and disruptive editing. He had a penchant for editing topics that were controversial between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, pushing the Shi'a point of view, and had quite a short fuse. This was due to winners such as religious slurs against other Muslims, and telling users to eff off amongst other things over simple editing disputes; this came in addition to the editing by a number of IP addresses signing as Klaksonn and editing the same articles, though i've been unable to look through the four months worth of material for it, also throwing out religious/ethnic slurs against Jewish people as well. The above examples are just some of his more foul mouthed rants, but what he was really distinguished for was his pointed wit which was quite apparent.
So he was blocked, and flash forward to now. A number of anonymous IP addresses as mentioned began with a similar biting comments about other Muslims began appearing. My eyebrow was raised, however, when the new account mentioned started up with similar biting comments and multiple insances of throwing out the same religious slur. Theguy further went on to make comments to an admin involved in the editing disputes that, among other things, my entire time on Wikipedia has been spent here pushing a hatefull Wahhabi POV as is evidence in my contributions and user page history. How is this ostensibly new user so familiar with my editing history and user page history, and using the same type of writing mannerisms as Klaksonn?
I have only posted a few diffs for the sake of space here. I feel those alone are sufficient, however the editing histories of Klaksonn, NAccount, and the IP addresses serve as further evidence as well. Just take a few moments to peruse; not only his edit summaries but also his talk page comments contain the same passive aggressive tone, the same tired religious slurs, and the same fixation on my edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:AN#Al-Azhar University vandal

The first available administrator is requested to do the following:

Indef-block User:NAccount. He is clearly a disruptive POV pusher who makes personal attacks. The contribution log strongly suggests he is a sockpuppet as alleged. I can go into more detail if it's necessary.
Semi-protect Al-Azhar University, a favorite target of this editor. If other articles need to be semi-protected, please list them. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, could you please give more details? I have actually been looking at the history of Al-Azhar University, and the anon's edits there do not seem to be that out of line. I agree that there is some disruptive behavior, but I'm seeing that on the part of MezzoMezzo as well, so I want to make sure that we are not just "blocking an opposing view". Also, MezzoMezzo, could you please post a link to this SSP page, at the talkpage of all of the above accounts, including Klaksonn? Yes he's blocked, but others may be watching his talkpage, who would be interested in this report. Thanks, El on ka 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Elonka. If you look carefully at Special:Contributions/NAccount, you can see the first few edits:

16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:NAccount‎ (←Created page with '((userpage))')
16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:NAccount‎ (←Created page with 'Leave a message.')
16:35, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Al-Azhar University‎ (NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear)
16:39, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Aziz al-Abub‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (maybe you should read the source first before imposing your hateful POV)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ali Atwa‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Hassan Izz-Al-Din‎ (stalking me now?)
16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (→573? – 610: Early Life: added material from the source you like so much)
16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ibrahim Hussein Berro‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ghaleb Awwali‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Imad Mughniyah‎ (NPOV)

These edits were followed by a half-hour break. The first two edits, in the same minute, were intended to create blue-links for the userpage and talk page. I know that sockpuppeteers do this because I did it myself last year. This is viewable only to admins, but Elonka, you're an admin so you can see it. Last year when I was suffering from mental illness I created a number of sockpuppets, as I later explained here. One of those sockpuppets was Dodo Gogo (talk · contribs) to impersonate administrator Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs). I started randomly reverting good edits, but before I did that, I made a meaningless edit to my userpage so that my username would show up as a blue link in the recent-changes, and people would not be suspicious why a redlinked username is reverting lots of edits. It didn't take long for an admin to catch me anyway. I learned in my months doing sockpuppet investigations that other sockpuppets think alike, and will turn their userpages and talk pages into blue links in order to avoid the curious questions of "Who is this new user?" That's evidently what NAccount was thinking. Then, one minute after creating his userpage and talk page, NAccount edits Al-Azhar University with a personal attack in the edit summary. In five of the next edits, all within a 12-minute period, NAccount leaves an edit summary of "stalking me now, Wahhabi?" or "stalking me now?" It is plainly obvious that this user arrived with an agenda and immediately came to push forward that agenda. He is not an innocent new user. My experience from welcoming new users on recent-changes patrol is that all truly new users arrive with some degree of tentativeness. Even User:CreepyCrawly, who was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet because he didn't appear like a new editor on the global warming article, showed signs of not knowing exactly how everything works, and edited at a reasonably slow rate in his first hours here. This editor, in contrast, makes 11 edits in his first 12 minutes on the site, all with a very clear agenda. He should be blocked as a sockpuppet without regard to who the sockpuppeteer might be. I think, based on the pattern of personal attacks, that this is the same person as most or all of the IP addresses cited above, but I have not checked this rigorously so I am not certain. Regardless, semi-protection seems warranted for any articles frequently targeted by this guy. Only Al-Azhar University has been edited in more than one of these contrib logs, so I can't think of other articles to semi-protect, but others who are more familiar with the situation might have suggestions. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that the account was created to be deceptive. I had actually asked the anon to create an account,[1] rather than bouncing from IP to IP, so it would be easier to communicate. That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't like to immediately block the account as a sockpuppet. Even if it does turn out to be Klaksonn, that account has been blocked for several months. It is my opinion that if NAccount is willing to moderate his behavior, post in a civil manner, provide reliable sources, and stick to using one account, that it may be worth giving him another chance. So far his behavior has been (slowly) improving, which is why I'd like to make a sincere effort to work with him. However, I do agree that if he's just going to pop in and be uncivil and make unreasonable reverts though, then I would have no trouble with blocking him. --El on ka 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is Klaksonn, take a look at his block log. I'm not completely comfortable with letting this guy return through a back door without owning up to what he did. However, if you think you can take control of the situation, I trust you to give your best effort. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His last comments regarding this issue were to call me a pusher of "9/11 Wahhabi Islam". I'm personally a bit offended by that and wouldn't call it an improvement. That's not the kind of language that should be tolerated on here, especially from an editor that is obviously not unfamiliar with site policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been on the receiving end of NAccount's abuse under several of his anonymous IPs, and I've had a chance to see his handiwork up close. I've also reported his disruptive activities twice on the Adminstrator's noticeboard. Here's a quick summary of some of his antics:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

5) Removing wanted terrorists from Wiki categories that identify them as such. Here is yet another example of this. NAccount did this quite a few times.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page and here.

I'd also like to point out that in most of my dealings with this user, I've addressed him, based on the similarity of edits on different but related pages, as though it were a forgone conclusion that he was all of the aforementioned anonymous IPs, and not once did he bother denying this. I think that, in and of itself, is very telling. Given all of the forgoing, I also strongly recommend an indefinite block on User:NAccount, and page protection on the Al-Azhar University and 'Amr ibn al-'As pages in particular. Causteau (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causteau, I agree with you that the anon has made some questionable edits, especially as regards removing the Terrorist category from a couple articles of known terrorists.[2][3] However, the anon was also removing that category in good ways as well, such as removing the category from biographies where there were no solid sources that the individual was ever called a terrorist.[4] Especially when dealing with BLP subjects, removing such a category is absolutely correct to do,[5] and it's actually disruptive for people to put the category back, as MezzoMezzo did,[6] since that is a violation of BLP. As for the edits at Al-Azhar University, yes there was an edit war, but it went both ways. For example, Causteau, you too were removing sourced information, and doing so with inflammatory edit summaries.[7][8][9][10][11] where you were making personal attacks and accusing someone of "slander". Do you see the irony in your edit summary here,[12] where you said, "quit trying to make this personal; you just replaced a sourced, direct quote for some ambiguous, unsupported statement and tacked on a bunch of worthless, unrelated sources behind it; see talk page"? or "my POV? you've got some nerve; you post a bogus, unsupported, inflammatory statement, and when called on it, cite a bunch of sources that don't even support your initial bogus statement! see talk page" So it's a bit WP:KETTLE for you to be accusing the anon of being the disruptive element here. Please, I'd like everyone to calm down, and as FayssalF said, remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. --El on ka 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're getting at Elonka. I've already clearly admitted to you to having been uncivil at times toward that anonymous guy. Where have I denied it? What I did do was point out on your talk page that NAccount was the first to address me in a rude fashion, which I'm of course right about since time stamps readily prove it.

He was the first to turn the discussion personal on the Al-Azhar University history page:

1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)

2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)

3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)

4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)

5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)

6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)

7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)

8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)

He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:

Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)

In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He is not a victim in all this since he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages as well. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone. And what about NAccount's attitude toward Mezzo? When he referred to Mezzo repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) as "Wahhabi" -- is that not a religious slur? Does that not count for anything? You also write that I replaced sourced material in my reversions of NAccount's edits. That is not entirely accurate. I only twice (1, 2) reverted sourced material; the rest of the time, I was removing untrue POV statements backed by dummy sources, as I've already fully explained on the Al-Azhar talk page. I don't know if you've been reading my posts on your talk page or not, but I've already addressed this matter there too: literally one sentence differentiates NAccount's latest version of the Al-Azhar University page from mine, and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with statements that were more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. Lastly, the "slander" I was referring to was the fact that NAccount repeatedly attempted to insert a blatantly untrue POV statement about Saladin -- a statement which NAccount also happened to have personally authored -- charging that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". NAccount did this a record of 6 times on the Al-Azhar University page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he began tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy sources after the phrase to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the the POV it was and is. And I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page.

Administrators who are reading this: Please do not take this matter lightly. This isn't just some silly content dispute, and MezzoMezzo, Shalom and I are not all wrong. NAccount's edits are every bit as disruptive and ill-intentioned as they appear to be. Also, do not be fooled into thinking that he is a newbie. His facility around Wikipedia and his methodical, rapid posting style belie that notion. Please re-read Shalom's post for confirmation of this. If, in his haste to remove all reference to acknowledged terrorists, NAccount may also have happened to have removed reference to one or two folks not yet identified as such, that's great... but it still doesn't excuse his relentless POV edits, provocation, and attempts at concealing the identities of wanted terror suspects. Causteau (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to be clear:

If someone else is rude, this does not give you the right to be rude back. Neither does it give you the right to ask for the first person to be blocked since "they were rude first". From an administrator's point of view, as soon as both parties are rude to each other, both parties are equally in the wrong. Lesson here: Don't take the bait
In terms of sockpuppetry, I do not believe that all of the above listed IPs are being controlled by the same person, especially because they're coming in from different continents. So it would be wrong to block one person, for actions taken by a different one. First we need to sort out who is who.
Regarding the edit-warring at Al-Azhar University, I am not seeing anything worth blocking the anon for. Instead, I see multiple accounts who were reverting each other, deleting each other's sources, and being equally rude to each other. If I were to block one account, to be fair, I should block them all (including Causteau and MezzoMezzo). But I think that would be excessive.
Blocks at this point would serve little purpose, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, and not punitive. Right now, since NAccount and the anons are not editing, a block really wouldn't do anything. If edit warring starts up again though, then blocks or page protection may be an option.
What this comes down to in terms of this SSP report, is trying to determine whether any of the accounts listed, were used by Klaksonn. So far I've been seeing evidence that the accounts were occasionally disruptive, but that's not proof of sockpuppetry. What I'd like to see instead, is evidence like, "Klaksonn was disruptive on article X,(diffs) and the anon was disruptive in the same way on article X"(diffs). Or "Klaksonn used the following language,(diffs) and the anon used the same language.(diffs)"
In summary, since there was inappropriate behavior all around, what I'd like to do is wipe the slate clean at this point, and move forward. If there's name-calling, or edit-warring, I would ask those who are capable of moderating their behavior, to not respond in kind. Instead:
- Stay civil
- Do not revert, ever, unless you are dealing with truly blatant vandalism or policy violations.
- If you see someone remove something, do not add it back unless you have a source.
- If you see someone add sourced information, and you feel that the sources have been misinterpreted, don't revert. Instead, change the edit to something more appropriate.
- If you see someone add unsourced information, don't revert it, instead, modify it, add your own source, or tag it with a ((fact)) template. If they don't provide a source in a reasonable amount of time, then the information can be deleted,
- Stay civil
- Keep edit summaries very calm and neutral
- Keep talkpage comments very calm and neutral
- In both edit summaries and talkpage comments, avoid using the words "you" and "your". Stick to discussing the article content, instead of the editors involved. There are venues for discussing disruptive editors (such as user talkpages, administrator noticeboards, and SSP reports). But article talkpages should be reserved for discussions of article content.

With the above guidelines (and especially with the more emotionally mature editors staying civil), it'll be much simpler to stabilize things, and identify any truly disruptive elements. Hope that helps, El on ka 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have watched the Al-Azhar dispute from the window and I must say that there was no such real disruption except the edit warring. I have no opinion on the matter of the dispute but it seems that administrators, mainly Elonka, are not being sure if this IP/editor is really a disruptive sockpuppet or not. That is part of assuming good faith and not biting the newbies and I appreciate that.

Well, since sockpuppetry drains much energy from everyone, and due to the report filed above, I run a checkuser. Note that I have no conclusive idea if Klaksonn is running all the accounts. I have no IP information on that since no prior Klaksonn CU has been done before. What is concluded in this case is the fact the IP/NAccount is part of a set of 5 accounts. Only the IP and NAccount have edited Al-Azhar. 2 other accounts edit other areas. The rest (2 others) edit Lebanonn-related articles and one of the accounts violated WP:BLP policy once.

Please prepare a formal request for CheckUser in order to have official confirmation. I'll leave the administrative decision to the admins since they know more details about this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I thought I was done but Elonka's last comment re IPs above made me think about it again. So I went to review again the findings of yesterday though I already knew that 63.216.X.X. has been used as a proxy ("Beyond the Network"). 71.x.x.x. is not related.

Back to 63 and 77. In fact they are based on different countries but one is used as a proxy. There are a dozen of accounts. The all share the same set of IPs, the same agent and they edit the same set articles. In fact, I would categorize those areas as following:

Al-Azhar and Saudi Arabia Grand Mufti;
Shia-related articles;
Lebanon politics;
Pakistan-related articles, mainly politics and religion;

While we can argue that it is legitimate to have 4 (or 3 if you'd consider the first two ones as one) separate and different accounts to edit the different areas above, having 12 accounts goes beyond simple violations of sockpuppetry especially when the accounts are used to circumvent Wikipedia policies.

Almost all of these accounts were created recently -- one was created a year ago, some a couple of months ago and the rest a few days ago including 2 that not being used. Everytime I clicked on the check button I thought it would be the last. In fact, there may be other accounts but I got really tired at this stage. Probably another CheckUser can help at the RFCU page.

Again, I cannot make any relationship between all the accounts and related IPs with that of Klaksonn. However, and regardless of Klaksonn, we have here a serious violation of WP:SOCK.

I'll be provinding info on the accounts once a RFCU is opened. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My observations at the time when Klaksonn was at his peak in abusive behaviour (just prior to his indef block) was that he was also using addresses in both Lebanon and US. There were a few times when he would edit anonymously (either intentionally or due to not logging in) although I can't quite remember now, which articles they related to. However, as it was pretty evident who it was, there was no need to raise the SOCK issue (and assuming good faith that it was mostly not intentional). Looking at the current editing tactics and having reviewed many of the edit summaries, I would tend to agree with MezzoMezzo that it is Klaksonn. I would've suggested that after all this time, maybe it would be worth giving him another chance but given the behaviour, if it can be conclusively proved that it is Klaksonn, would suggest a more stringent ban. → AA ^(talk) — 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser results could not prove that there is a connection with Klaksonn. There might be a connection if behaviour is similar but now after all this process we can guarantee for sure that any disruption similar to that of Klaksonnn can lead to a ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates 2

I have just received an email from the editor is question. In the email, the user is recognizing the fact that he has been operating multiple accounts, with no mention to Klaksonn, and where he feels sorry for the reciprocal incivility which he promises he will refrain from engaging in. He also apologizes and promises not to do it again.

In my answer to the email, I reminded him as I reminded MezzoMezzo twice that NPOV and CIVIL should be observed all the time.

Now, apart from the SOCK policy prohibiting using open proxies and, for protective and transparency reasons this editor has been informed that will be also prohibited from using regular IP editing. The user will have separate accounts for each main area: Naccount for Islam, one for Lebanon and another for Pakistan-related articles as noted above. There are also other areas I got to discover while digging further (please see more details and rationale below). For privacy reasons, the only person, probably other CheckUsers and some admins, entitled to know about the usernames of these accounts is me. I'd let Elonka know if she has no problems in keeping an eye on the situation especially that both sides believe she is a neutral admin on this issue.

I will be blocking (two have already been blocked) the following accounts:

Abanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (an account created solely to harass opponents)
Bonizus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (zero edits - no need for it)
Carticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Shi'a articles)
Clombo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Lebanese bios)
ForVandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (as it sounds)
Kartikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (a déja vu - re Carticus)
Lccn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (articles already touched by other accounts)
Nasrulana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (this account made some decent edits but edits the same area as one of the oldest accounts)
OtherAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (uselss and resonates so bad)

Please note that the block rationale is independent from the extra but needed comentaries in parenthesis.

There are 2 constructive accounts left. One is mainly dedicated to music, sports, popular articles and AfDs. No disruption and I must say that it is a very constructive and satisfying account. There is another one which has made no more than a few edits including the creation of an Iranian biography stub that has little to do with politics or religion in the real sense. I personally see no reason to block these accounts. However, I will not hesitate to block any of them in case they interfere with the editing of any of the three main areas described above; Islam, Lebanon and Pakistan topics.

I will now assume good faith and go on but make sure that administrators and myself will be watching from a distance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this FayssalF, and yes, feel free to keep me in the loop. My email address is elonka@aol.com --El on ka 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]