Editing on the same subject, Syria. Editing on these pages (not all): Syrian presidential election, 2014, Dick Black (politician) and Syrian Civil War. All they keep revering the same users and keeps adding the same text. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611948853&oldid=611948726 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611948377&oldid=611948025 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611819916&oldid=611811768 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611879171&oldid=611866536 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611958003&oldid=611957849 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611958417&oldid=611958003 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611960527&oldid=611960064 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611855022&oldid=611853885 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dick_Black_%28politician%29&diff=611977043&oldid=611973802 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dick_Black_%28politician%29&diff=611946793&oldid=611946582 LibDutch ( talk) 07:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am ip 69.123.218.73. I Made it pretty clear that I was that IP and have just made a new account. Besides, your edit warring is what brought Sayresvile, me , and erlbako to that page to edit. So don't complain that everyone is editing the same article — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxReflectionxX ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.123.218.72&diff=611859649&oldid=611855667 XxReflectionxX ( talk) 00:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Firstly, LibDutch himself has a sockpuppet and is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation I have opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibDutch.
Second, two of the IPS he is accusing reflection of using were actually used by me, proving these claims by LibDutch false.
An admin needs to see this and review LibDutch's case, as he is a serious problem on Syrian Civil War related subjects.
King of Hearts, if LibDutch's sock isn't ArabUAE, I will figuratively eat my hat. The only reason I created an account was to prove this, as IPs can't create sock puppet investigations. I will probably abandon the account right after the case is concluded too. Signing in is a hasstle and I prefer the anonymity of not having a username. But this is important as LibDutch is a highly disruptive user who engages in dishonest bad faith behaviour. And his sock puppet will be exposed as soon as you check. IPinvestigates ( talk) 04:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
After 2 years of being inactive, this editor's behavior looks increasingly similar to Sopher's in Syrian civil war-related topics. Sopher previously used XxReflectionxX to evade a topic ban shortly after the sanction was enforced and used it to edit war his way out to push a particular (mainly anti-Assad) POV in the Syrian war topic.
Now Zenithfel is adding highly dubious content (and possible original research), that was usually discussed on the Syrian civil war talk page due to its controversial nature, to the "Alleged ties with the Syrian government" section (10.3.3) in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (all without edit summaries) and keeps renaming that section to "Relations with the Syrian government". [1] [2] [3] These edits attempted to misrepresent opinion pieces as known facts, usually through original research and synthesis, [4] because this source he uses doesn't mention anything about an Assad-ISIS alliance. Sopher's editing experience involved a lot of OR, though I can only refer to a discussion we had here for now which kind of confirms his intentions (hopefully I will find some diffs by tomorrow).
Sopher frequently used bare URL refs [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and so does Zenithfel, as seen in the previous diffs (+ [15] [16] [17] [18]).
A lot of edit warring on Christianity articles (Sopher on Resurrection of Jesus [19]; Zenithfel on Jesus [20]). The most common I found was the elimination of the word belief (Sopher: [21] [22] [23] [24]; Zenithfel: [25]). Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 02:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Stop making false accusations against Zenithful,i knew him since i have began editing on wikipedia since three years ago,Zenithful is way different than Sopher99. both edit differently,i still remember when you tried to falsely accuse me of Sockpuppetry,this attitude is unacceptable by you accusing editors of sockpuppetry with no proof,Fitzcarmalan. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
i was logged off when i made the comment,any way,i don't believe that Zenithful is A sockpuppet,i have known him way longer than you. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
but that doesn't mean they are the same. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Zenithful didn't make alot of edits in the syrian civil war,most of his edits were in the Libyan civil war,and it doesn't mean that his edits appear to favor the rebels means that he is Sopher99,also a crucial evidence that Zenithful never got blocked and he respected the 3RR rule,while Sopher didn't and got blocked multiple times and topic banned. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
but,still i can't and don't believe that Zenithful is a sockpuppet for Sopher99. Alhanuty ( talk) 14:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: More evidence is needed,
Fitzcarmalan. What you've provided so far is generally unconvincing. First, there are lots of editors on both sides of the Syrian civil war pages. The fact that Sopher99 and Zenithfel apparently agree (I haven't verified it) is not saying much. Second, do you know how many editors use bare URLs? Even I do when I'm lazy. That, too, doesn't mean much. The Jesus stuff is the best of what you've got. Zenithfel seems to have gotten away with edit warring, whereas Sopher99 got nailed more than once. The belief/faith thing isn't accurate as Zenithfel didn't substitute the word faith for belief in that one diff. In poking around on my own, I did find some similarities, but what I found isn't really good enough, either. For example, both have them have a lot of deleted contributions. I think it's because they tagged articles and templated articles that later got deleted rather than creating articles that were deleted, but I didn't go through all of them because it's very tedious. Neither of them archives their talk page, but there are a fair number of editors who, unfortunately, don't. One dissimilarity. Sopher99 said, "Your welcome." Zenithfel said "Your Welcome." Both of them used "your" instead of the correct "you're", but that's a common error. To the extent one can read anything into it, it's interesting that the case of "welcome" is different with both. So, back to my original request: I need more.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This account aroused suspicion as soon as it started editing last year (see
this AN report by
Ymblanter and also
this). I immediately thought of Sopher, for my own reasons, but I also had no evidence back then. A single-purpose account, whose contributions are all about suspected chemical attacks in Syria, and who starts quoting policy immediately after its creation?
Looks like a duck to me And despite the fact that Sopher was a relatively experienced editor, they were also notorious for being easily dragged into
WP:SOAPBOXing in talk page discussions (e.g.
this, and most of what you can find in the
Talk:Syrian Civil War archives). LylaSand's first lengthy comments on a talk page were pure soapboxing (check out
this recent thread). Also notice the association of all the civil war fatalities with Assad. Lyla's
"Syrian government killed over 300,000 civilians" and Sopher's "60,000 killed by army artillery.." (that was the death toll back then
[58] in April 2013). But then it gets more interesting with the following edit summaries:
Sopher used bare URLs in some of the above edit summaries where the word "paragraph" was used (omitted them from diffs, obviously). LylaSand, so far, only mentions the publisher's name, e.g. Newsweek and The Economist. But then again, sockpuppeteers learn from their mistakes, particularly experienced ones like Sopher. This might not be a perfect SPI report, but LylaSand is a fairly new account with only 348 edits. Requesting CU due to history of sleepers. And by sleepers I was referring to Zenithfel, the last suspected sock. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 14:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
"Removing POV pushing"
"shortening" (often involves POV-ish content removal)
"its pov pushing"
"stop pov pushing"
"pov pushing" in uncommon verb tenses:
"We already talk about..."
"already stated in X section"
Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bbb23: Has anyone looked through this yet? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is Stale. CU declined.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Editing on the same subject, Syria. Editing on these pages (not all): Syrian presidential election, 2014, Dick Black (politician) and Syrian Civil War. All they keep revering the same users and keeps adding the same text. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611948853&oldid=611948726 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611948377&oldid=611948025 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611819916&oldid=611811768 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_presidential_election%2C_2014&diff=611879171&oldid=611866536 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611958003&oldid=611957849 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611958417&oldid=611958003 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611960527&oldid=611960064 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=611855022&oldid=611853885 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dick_Black_%28politician%29&diff=611977043&oldid=611973802 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dick_Black_%28politician%29&diff=611946793&oldid=611946582 LibDutch ( talk) 07:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am ip 69.123.218.73. I Made it pretty clear that I was that IP and have just made a new account. Besides, your edit warring is what brought Sayresvile, me , and erlbako to that page to edit. So don't complain that everyone is editing the same article — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxReflectionxX ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.123.218.72&diff=611859649&oldid=611855667 XxReflectionxX ( talk) 00:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Firstly, LibDutch himself has a sockpuppet and is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation I have opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibDutch.
Second, two of the IPS he is accusing reflection of using were actually used by me, proving these claims by LibDutch false.
An admin needs to see this and review LibDutch's case, as he is a serious problem on Syrian Civil War related subjects.
King of Hearts, if LibDutch's sock isn't ArabUAE, I will figuratively eat my hat. The only reason I created an account was to prove this, as IPs can't create sock puppet investigations. I will probably abandon the account right after the case is concluded too. Signing in is a hasstle and I prefer the anonymity of not having a username. But this is important as LibDutch is a highly disruptive user who engages in dishonest bad faith behaviour. And his sock puppet will be exposed as soon as you check. IPinvestigates ( talk) 04:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
After 2 years of being inactive, this editor's behavior looks increasingly similar to Sopher's in Syrian civil war-related topics. Sopher previously used XxReflectionxX to evade a topic ban shortly after the sanction was enforced and used it to edit war his way out to push a particular (mainly anti-Assad) POV in the Syrian war topic.
Now Zenithfel is adding highly dubious content (and possible original research), that was usually discussed on the Syrian civil war talk page due to its controversial nature, to the "Alleged ties with the Syrian government" section (10.3.3) in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (all without edit summaries) and keeps renaming that section to "Relations with the Syrian government". [1] [2] [3] These edits attempted to misrepresent opinion pieces as known facts, usually through original research and synthesis, [4] because this source he uses doesn't mention anything about an Assad-ISIS alliance. Sopher's editing experience involved a lot of OR, though I can only refer to a discussion we had here for now which kind of confirms his intentions (hopefully I will find some diffs by tomorrow).
Sopher frequently used bare URL refs [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and so does Zenithfel, as seen in the previous diffs (+ [15] [16] [17] [18]).
A lot of edit warring on Christianity articles (Sopher on Resurrection of Jesus [19]; Zenithfel on Jesus [20]). The most common I found was the elimination of the word belief (Sopher: [21] [22] [23] [24]; Zenithfel: [25]). Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 02:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Stop making false accusations against Zenithful,i knew him since i have began editing on wikipedia since three years ago,Zenithful is way different than Sopher99. both edit differently,i still remember when you tried to falsely accuse me of Sockpuppetry,this attitude is unacceptable by you accusing editors of sockpuppetry with no proof,Fitzcarmalan. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
i was logged off when i made the comment,any way,i don't believe that Zenithful is A sockpuppet,i have known him way longer than you. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
but that doesn't mean they are the same. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Zenithful didn't make alot of edits in the syrian civil war,most of his edits were in the Libyan civil war,and it doesn't mean that his edits appear to favor the rebels means that he is Sopher99,also a crucial evidence that Zenithful never got blocked and he respected the 3RR rule,while Sopher didn't and got blocked multiple times and topic banned. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
but,still i can't and don't believe that Zenithful is a sockpuppet for Sopher99. Alhanuty ( talk) 14:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: More evidence is needed,
Fitzcarmalan. What you've provided so far is generally unconvincing. First, there are lots of editors on both sides of the Syrian civil war pages. The fact that Sopher99 and Zenithfel apparently agree (I haven't verified it) is not saying much. Second, do you know how many editors use bare URLs? Even I do when I'm lazy. That, too, doesn't mean much. The Jesus stuff is the best of what you've got. Zenithfel seems to have gotten away with edit warring, whereas Sopher99 got nailed more than once. The belief/faith thing isn't accurate as Zenithfel didn't substitute the word faith for belief in that one diff. In poking around on my own, I did find some similarities, but what I found isn't really good enough, either. For example, both have them have a lot of deleted contributions. I think it's because they tagged articles and templated articles that later got deleted rather than creating articles that were deleted, but I didn't go through all of them because it's very tedious. Neither of them archives their talk page, but there are a fair number of editors who, unfortunately, don't. One dissimilarity. Sopher99 said, "Your welcome." Zenithfel said "Your Welcome." Both of them used "your" instead of the correct "you're", but that's a common error. To the extent one can read anything into it, it's interesting that the case of "welcome" is different with both. So, back to my original request: I need more.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This account aroused suspicion as soon as it started editing last year (see
this AN report by
Ymblanter and also
this). I immediately thought of Sopher, for my own reasons, but I also had no evidence back then. A single-purpose account, whose contributions are all about suspected chemical attacks in Syria, and who starts quoting policy immediately after its creation?
Looks like a duck to me And despite the fact that Sopher was a relatively experienced editor, they were also notorious for being easily dragged into
WP:SOAPBOXing in talk page discussions (e.g.
this, and most of what you can find in the
Talk:Syrian Civil War archives). LylaSand's first lengthy comments on a talk page were pure soapboxing (check out
this recent thread). Also notice the association of all the civil war fatalities with Assad. Lyla's
"Syrian government killed over 300,000 civilians" and Sopher's "60,000 killed by army artillery.." (that was the death toll back then
[58] in April 2013). But then it gets more interesting with the following edit summaries:
Sopher used bare URLs in some of the above edit summaries where the word "paragraph" was used (omitted them from diffs, obviously). LylaSand, so far, only mentions the publisher's name, e.g. Newsweek and The Economist. But then again, sockpuppeteers learn from their mistakes, particularly experienced ones like Sopher. This might not be a perfect SPI report, but LylaSand is a fairly new account with only 348 edits. Requesting CU due to history of sleepers. And by sleepers I was referring to Zenithfel, the last suspected sock. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 14:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
"Removing POV pushing"
"shortening" (often involves POV-ish content removal)
"its pov pushing"
"stop pov pushing"
"pov pushing" in uncommon verb tenses:
"We already talk about..."
"already stated in X section"
Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bbb23: Has anyone looked through this yet? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is Stale. CU declined.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)