Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX/Archive

• Ibn Qattuta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

SimoooIX used to be an active editor on Wikipedia, until this new account of Ibn Qattuta was made 6 days after SimoooIX's last edit on 22 July (likely to evade their topic ban on Maghreb-related articles). Both appear to be interested in Maghrebi history, including the military history of Al-Andalus (SimoooIX[1][2][3] Ibn Qattuta[4][5]), the Almoravid dynasty (SimoooIX [6] Ibn Qattuta [7]) and the history of Mali (SimoooIX[8] Ibn Qattuta[9]). Most importantly, both are most interested in Muslim historical figures such as scholars and scientists (SimoooIX[10][11][12] Ibn Qattuta[13][14][15]) and appear to have a nationalist POV. Skitash (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed. Indeffing both accounts. Closing. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 808 AD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mosti95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pickle Rick 02 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

The first two editors have the same modus operandi as the sockmaster, mainly, wasting a lot of editors' time on the talk pages that are related to Morocco and Algeria and edit warring. Incidentally, "808 AD" was registered three weeks after "Mosti95" stopped editing.

Pickle Rick 02 who has already been indeffed for stirring trouble through his obsession with anything to do with the Regency of Algiers, had the same habits as the sockmaster and the other socks, especially 808 AD. Coincidentally, "Mosti95" was registered two weeks after their block.

If it helps, the sockmaster admitted that 105.69.250.201 is their IP (please see this revert and this one in which they admit that it was theirs), though, there is also Special:Contributions/2A02:3037:408:58B1::/64 which was linked to "Mosti95" (please see the comment on their talk page about IP socking). M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: time permitting, I would really appreciate it if you could look into this. I wouldn't normally ask, but there is some urgency here given that the data of "Pickle Rick 02" is about to go stale and I strongly suspect that they are connected to "808 AD" (the only suspected sock who is active at the moment). Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: many thanks. If you don't mind me asking: given the technical and behavioural evidence, what will happen next? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a reviewing admin or SPI clerk. I haven't looked deeply at the behavioural evidence but I believe there's probably enough to justify a block of 808 AD and Pickle Rick 02. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: once gain, thank you very much for your efforts. Happy holidays to you and yours. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blablubbs: If you have time, could you please look into this? I have a feeling that "808 AD" (who stopped editing after commenting on the CU) is using another account (possibly TybenFree). Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have nothing in common with these accounts and those are not my IPs. 808 AD (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the sock master has the same habit of removing the Regency of Algiers from the infobox of battles directly involving it under the same pretext of it being Ottoman ruled, a pretty common POV pushing where the sockmaster deliberately tries to remove the statehood of the Algerian Regency which leads to beleive we're dealing with a nationalist agenda and therefore nothing educationally useful. Here are some silimar WP:EW : [16] and this [17] as an example Same pretext given by someone who didn't bother taking a look at the Regency of Algiers article, which was greatly improved and its political status was well explained, despite the indeffed sockpuppet attempts to hamper it few months ago : [18] Overall, same tendentious behavious, same disregard to WP:Verifiability, same ignoring WP:Consensus, and the same Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that keeps coming back every few months to disrupt the Regency of Algiers related articles. Hopefully this will come to an end for Good.

PS: There is another sockpuppet which was created hastly after Pickle got indeffed as a mean to protest the Administrator's decision, this account was blocked shortly after: [19], which gives even more proof that the SPA is determined to evade blocks per this comment: [20] Shortly after the creation of this sockpuppet account 808 AD, it went straight to charge the Regency of Algiers article despite clear objection from a reached consensus in the talk page: [21], to add to the whole lot, his EW looks very similar to the ones done by this sock [22]. Basically, this banned user often disregards consensus, removes sourced content that don't suit him and uses cherry picking to distort information as per talk of the Regency of Algiers article. A behavior which looked very familiar; especially that his EW covers the articles of the same topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nourerrahmane (talk • contribs) 08:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going to get blocked for "Possilikely"? No way ... 808 AD (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 808 AD and Pickle Rick 02 are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to each other and  Possible to SimoooIX. Mosti95 appears technically  Unrelated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There are enough differences in behavioral patterns between 808 AD and the other socks I've looked into, not enough here to warrant blocking and tagging.  Closing without action The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Littlexiaogui (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

It has come to my attention that this new account has a lot in common with Eeddahbi (another sockpuppet of SimoooIX). Just a month after Eeddahbi was indefinitely blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry, Littlexiaogui has emerged, making very similar edits in North African cuisine articles such as Pastilla and Seffa. In Talk:Pastilla, this user has sent a very long wall of text pushing their own POV and claiming that Pastilla is of Moroccan origin. Interestingly, this is exactly what Eeddahbi and SimoooIX had been doing for the past several months. Skitash (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree with @Skitash: that this is clearly a returning sock. One thing is certain, regardless of whether they are a sock of SimoooIX or Lala_migos, they are here to push a nationalist POV. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ponyo: Thanks. If it's not too much trouble, could you please check TybenFree (that I mentioned above)? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ponyo: you're right. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Possible based on location and proxy use, but I'm going to block them for POV warrioring regardless.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's likely that it hasn't gotten any attention because you haven't laid out any evidence. I'm unfamiliar with this master and topic area in general, so I'm probably not the best CU to poke around. My best suggestion is to open another SPI with just TybenFree listed along with diffs, so that it's not buried in another SPI.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Already indeffed. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk assistance requested: - before this gets archived, please take a look at the markup. Based on the thread at WT:SPI#Open SPI (hidden) I suspect there may be something formatted incorrectly. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: I read the comment and checked. Everything looks as it should be. I guess M.Bitton didn't notice that this page is listed twice at WP:SPI becaouse there are two ongoing investigations here. Closing again. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Imteghren (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Both make very similar edits to Ibn Battuta[23][24] (the latter link redirects to another sock of SimoooIX, Ibn Qattuta), engage on talk pages extensively to question content in Maghreb-relates articles [25][26][27], write long edit summaries,[28][29][30][31] and edit articles pertaining to historical Islamic poets and scholars.[32][33][34]

I also find it rather suspicious that Imteghren created a user page with several userboxes and babel almost immediately after creating their account (this looks like something an experienced editor would do). Following this, they added a "new user" template with the following edit summary: "Figuring out User Pages", possibly to throw off any suspicious editors. They also show a good understanding of Wikipedia policies such as WP:MPN, WP:NPOV and MOS:ETHNICITY[35][36][37] for an editor that joined a week ago (notice how the sockmaster often cited MOS:ETHNICITY to make changes to the lead,[38][39] just as Imteghren does). Skitash (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Izno: Do you believe the user could be a block-evading sockpuppet based on their editing behavior? Skitash (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, it's not useful to request a CU to compare to accounts that are past 90 days since being blocked, which is when our data runs off to the vanished lands. I didn't find anything. Izno (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not evaluated whether they are or are not. Izno (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there were some supporting technical evidence, I don't think I'd have any problem acting, but without that, I can't quite get to pulling the trigger on a block based just on the behavioral evidence. In any case, they haven't edited in 2-1/2 weeks so there's no urgency to do anything here. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]