Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bless sins/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Bless sins

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

05 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Outed himself with this comment. The Vice regent account was created a few hours after the Bless sins account was blocked for edit-warring. The two accounts have edited over 180 pages in common, including some extremely rarely edited pages - for example, on this talk page, only three userids have ever commented, two of which are Bless sins and Vice regent, making essentially the identical comment three years apart. Also, although one might claim that any two editors interested in Islam might have these kinds of overlaps, some of the articles the accounts have both edited are extremely unlikely combinations - for example, 2005 Cronulla riots, Demographics of atheism, India, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, Justice and Development Party (Morocco), Piracy, Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Seawater Greenhouse, Utameshgaray of Kazan - many of these topics are both unrelated and obscure. Both accounts voted the same way here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7#Category:Islamophobia. It would be a good idea to see if there are other accounts involved. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:Bless sins has requested an opportunity to respond on this page but the current block prevents it. The editor has a potentially viable defense/explanation and the request to present it seems reasonable. Is there any way such an opportunity can be arranged? Doc Tropics 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am just a lurker. I am not convinced by the evidences presented here. It could be a case of confirmation bias.

Bless sins has already presented a scenario which is indeed possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.105.240 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Vice regent account was created a few hours after the Bless sins account was blocked for edit-warring.

Note that Bless sins account was blocked only for 36 hours. Vice regent account was created 21 hours after the Bless sins's block. Before Bless sins was unblocked, Vice regent made only two edits to totally unrelated page, Weetzie Bat, not to mention both of the edits are uncontroversial. Check these out here and here.

  • The two accounts have edited over 180 pages in common.

Out of how many? According to Doc Tropics's comment from User talk:Bless sins, Bless sins has contributed to over 4,000 pages and only contributions from 183 pages overlapped with that of Vice regent.

  • On this talk page, only three users have ever commented, two of which are Bless sins and Vice regent

That evidence doesn't show that VR is a sock-puppet. It is nothing unusual for users with Islamic backgrounds to comment on that page. (The three comments only testify that Wikipedia has a few users with Islamic backgrounds) Moreover, that talk page is not something like deletion discussion. Nobody would create a sock-puppet (not to mention concealing it for four years) just to make these two comments. By the way, the two comments are not similar. The same goes for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7#Category:Islamophobia.

  • Other notes: Vice regent has been embroiling himself in university related talk pages. eg. Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, Talk:University of Al-Karaouine, and many others including some neutral point of view related discussions (I become aware of this sock-puppet discussion by following the link to VR's talk page from all these discussions). He even created a list of sources at User:Vice regent/sandbox to support his claims. If one has a sock-puppet, this is the best chance to use it. But I don't see Bless sins's comments there. Indeed, creating a sock-puppet and concealing it for four years is a great effort. If Bless sins did, I don't think he will let you know just by a careless edit. Excuse me for my clumsy English. Just my two cents. I am out of here. 83.170.105.240 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anything is "possible". As I pointed out above, however, of the "only" 183 pages that overlap, some are extremely unlikely to have happened by chance. Also, that means that Bless sins has edited over 12% of the pages Vice regent has edited. And what are the odds that two different editors who generally only edit for the purpose of defending Islam/Muslim countries would also both edit Gecko or Seawater Greenhouse or Piracy? In addition, Wikipedia has dozens of Muslim editors, it's unlikely they would both find that obscure Talk: page, and the comments were in fact, very similar - essentially they both said "this page shouldn't exist". Finally, we don't have the checkuser data - how many computers were the accounts sharing? Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you editing through a proxy? Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look over this, and have offered some comments at User_talk:Bless_sins#Having_a_look. To respond to the "183 pages" comments, above, if they are two people who know each other well, and share an IP address and computer, it seems to me entirely likely that they will discuss the articles they edit and occasionally decide to both edit the same ones (which is a very small proportion of their total edits). We are *not* looking at the odds of two completely unrelated people happening upon the same obscure article here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From memory (I have not re-run the check), the overlapping edits came from exactly one computer, and one of the editors also uses other computers.  Frank  |  talk  17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on unfamiliar ground here, but wouldn't this seem to support Bless Sins "version" of the issue? Doc Tropics 18:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they both shared computers in different locations (e.g. a work and home location), that would support the view that the accounts were used by the same individual, rather than say, roommates. If the two accounts shared one computer (the home location), and each had other computers they did not share (e.g. two different work locations), that would support the view that the accounts were merely roommates. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is this an accurate summary: "Although not conclusive either way, this usage pattern could be seen as tentative support for User: Bless sins defense/story." ? It seems accurate to me, based on your explanation. Am I correct that this is not definitive evidence of sock-puppetry? Thanks for your patience! Doc Tropics 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical standpoint, the usage pattern is consistent with two roommates sharing a computer from one IP address, with one of them also editing from other locations. In addition, from geolocation of the IP address used by both accounts, the type of connection is consistent with a home network rather than a corporate, university, public library, or similar location - mind you, consistent with is specific wording. There's only so much we can determine.  Frank  |  talk  19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Your explanation confirms my general understanding, and your extra effort is appreciated. Doc Tropics 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue of overlapping IP, and have no particular expertise in sockpuppets, but wanted to add the following thoughts. I recently dealt with the Vice Regent account on the Neutral Point of View noticeboard and by and large agreed with him, although I did find his sources a bit weak in places, shall we say high-school level as opposed to grad school. This is consistent with a young relative, for example, using an uncle's computer. I know when my daughter was using my laptop she constantly left herself signed into her Facebook and Gmail accounts.
But VR's sources were indeed RS and he made an excellent case that the weight of the evidence is not with the way the article is written. If sockpuppetry was at work, both accounts would have chimed in on that discussion, don't you think? It is quite heated, and involves the other viewpoint calling me ignorant and VR's point of view monstrous and grotesque. Interesting that at the height of that he is suddenly a sockpuppet, based on a short block of another account three years ago. I have never interacted with Bless Sins. I do not know either of these individuals and am demonstrably a completely different individual. I do not know how heavily editing patterns count in such investigations, but based on a quick scan, VR's edits are often a couple of years later. Could they not have been triggered by family discussions? Just a thought. I thought VR made some very good points and was much more civil than those with the opposing viewpoint. I'd urge a second look, especially if the investigation was prompted by someone involved in the discussion I mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: in the "admin comments" where the conclusion is "technically indistinguishable", does that mean that there were in fact no IP addresses unique to either account as discussed above? Since we have a few people entitled to look at the information and the rest just have to go by their conclusions, they should be very clear about what they're saying. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI consensus [1] was that situation more likely two users sharing computer than socking. Nobody Ent 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Checkuser note: - User:Bless sins and User:Vice regent are  Confirmed as the same user  Technically indistinguishable from each other.  Frank  |  talk  18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Strikethrough and slight rewording above to slightly more accurately describe the situation. In the context of the CU tools, even "confirmed" is subject to caveat. I've done no additional check and haven't changed my view of the technical data; I am agreeing with WilliamH's wording below as slightly more accurate.  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Checked per this diff, and in this incident, the two accounts are  Technically indistinguishable. Bless sins has sinced claimed that Vice regent is a relation. WilliamH (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock indefinitely, blocked master for a fortnight. TNXMan 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05 February 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


I suspect meatpuppetry going on here. 羽衣狐 is doing nothing but restoring the same edits made by the user Vice Regent[[2]],[[3]]. On top of that Vice Regent put [[{{{1}}}]] for which you are supposed to discuss in the talk page before using. Mountain157 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk assistance requested: Please move this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bless sins.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm closing this because there is no evidence of socking. The notion that 羽衣狐 is doing nothing but restoring the same edits made by the user Vice Regent, is not true. 羽衣狐 once restored one edit by Vice Regent, and that is far far from "nothing but restoring". And there is no mention of Bless sins at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vice regent


The sole purpose of this new account has been to keep reverting[4][5][6][7] the article Concubinage in Islam back to the same version Vice regent keeps reverting to.[8][9][10][11]

Both Vice regent and CircassianBilyal (falsely) claim that this version has been the longstanding stable one for a month.[12][13][14] Even though the status quo (since the article was created on 4 April) is the one before the edit warring by Arsi786 and Vice regent started on 17 May[15].

Not only that, but they also keep doing the same page moves over objections from multiple editors. VR:[16] CB:[17]

He was also familiar with our usernames[18] in just his 4th edit and indicated he knew there was a discussion ongoing on talk (which his account had not even participated in before reverting the article back to VR's version).

CB is clearly not a new user, given their familiarity with the history of the dispute (they claim the version has been longstanding for a month) and even their reasoning is the same as VR. Vice regent also jumped in to defend CB when I left a message on his talkpage for not assuming good faith.[19]

This editor has not shown any interest in other articles so far except for this article where Vice regent has a content dispute with me on.

It is also noteworthy that CircassianBilyal shows up to support VR just when VR finds himself outnumbered on a talkpage discussion as his old supporters - who were supporting him on that article in May[20] - Arsi786 and SharabSalam are either topic banned[21] or have left.[22]

Mcphurphy (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After 10 days of inactivity CircassianBilyal has suddenly reappeared to revert the article back to Vice regents's edit.[23] Mcphurphy (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Appears to be retaliation for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/bolanigak. I have no idea who CircassianBilyal is. Both this SPI and the SPI into Mcphurphy should be completed.VR talk 22:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? I am not vice do you have any Strong proof of this? I will wait for the admins to clear me of such accusations. I will say I made a account before this account which I forgot the password to and no longer have access to it I created that account and used for a day or so and I lost access to it so I made this account. 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC) From: CircassianBilyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by CircassianBilyal (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - CircassianBilyal's comment that "I will say I made a account before this account..." implies an assumption that CU will show they're the same. Pleae confirm. Cabayi (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't check Bless sins as I don't see any evidence they're connected, but the other two are Red X Unrelated. Closing with no action. – bradv🍁 03:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bless_sins/Archive&oldid=1142567888"