Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah

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

06 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah was indefinitely blocked at 18:47, 4 April 2020. He/she had two topics of interest: Deobandi and Barelvi (he/she edited several articles related to the latter).

All the above suspected socks have only edited on the topic of Deobandi, either on Deobandi or their user/talk pages.

  • JaamShirin was created at 12:29, 5 April 2020, and deleted a paragraph from the article on the Deobandi at 12:31[1] with edit summary Self published sources. None of them have this quote. It is surprising that a new editor knows the policies so well.
  • Americanusmle was created at 12:47, 5 April 2020, and only made test edits to a template-call in the article on Deobandi.
  • Jaamshirina was created at 19:32, 5 April 2020. He/she used his/her user page to create in 35 edits a new version of a section created by Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah on Deobandi.
    • Jaamshirina 35 edits [2]
    • Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah 6 edits [3]
    • Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah 3 edits [4]
    • Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah 11 edits [5]
    • Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah 1 edit [6]
Jaamshirina eventually posted part of the section from his/her user page to the article [7]
Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah knows about the technique of building up complex edits on a user sandbox-type page. It was explained to him/her on their talk page at 06:33 30 March 2020.
  • 106.210.141.247 reinserted Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah's "Criticism" heading.[8]
  • 49.35.34.140 is an IP from the same city as 106.210.141.247 and made a comment wrongly placed on the article page and not the talk page.[9]

Notice the flow:

  1. IP posts "Criticism" heading.[10]
  2. Jaamshirina posts the same "Criticism" heading.[11]
  3. Jaamshirina see that there are 2 "Criticism" headings and deletes one.[12]
  4. Jaamshirina posts part of the text from his/her user page under the "Criticism" heading.[13]

Note that the citations have an "accessdate" parameter, but not a date parameter. And in both cases he has not bothered to put in the right article title.

And here is Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah doing it:

  1. Posts the same "Criticism" heading.[14]
  2. Posts the text.[15]

Note that this citation has an "accessdate" parameter, but not a date parameter. Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah is often careless about the "title" parameter in citations[16]

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Jaamshirina was warned by RegentsPark that sockpuppet editing is against the rules at 20:31, 5 April 2020‎ [17] and 20:10, 5 April 2020 [18] He/she made edits to Deobandi after that time.[19][20]

I think that he/she is probably a fluent English-speaker - if you look at his talk page he uses difficult constructions like "wasn't" and "doesn't". People who are not fluent in English do not use these. Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Okay, so JaamShirin is technically Red X Unrelated to anyone else. Americanusmle and Jaamshirina are  Confirmed to each other, and  Likely to the master. ST47 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting the text on JamahShirina's user page is identical to what Khadim ahlesunnah was trying to insert in the article, this is a duck case. Will block all accounts. --regentspark (comment) 16:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All blocked. Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As mentioned in the previous report, Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah is interested in the article on Deobandi. But it has been semi-protected, so he/she used user talk pages[21][22] and the article talk page[23][24] to request edits on this topic.

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah has a habit of using lots of edits. Phelobtimous does the same. He/she edited the article on Wahhabism (6 edits 22:11-22:20 7 April 2020), developed an edit on the Sandbox (6 edits 00:00-00:44 8 April 2020) and then added it to Wahhabism (2 edits 00:45-00:48 8 April 2020).

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah often posts a string of messages. For example:

Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked (duck). --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, no other accounts immediately visible, closing. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Making identical edits [25], [26] with roughly the same justification. Edit warred. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now admitted that both the accounts belong to them. No word about why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Maizbhandariya came to my talk page and commented on my edit to their draft Special:Diff/950787666. Six minutes after I replied Special:Diff/950787666, Phelanthrophist asks me to "please look my article" Special:Diff/950787927. I saw no such article on Phelanthrophist's edit history. I did see two other accounts created in their user log. The time proximity leads me to be suspicious. The sockpuppets have little to no edit history. Maizbhandariya's edits relate to a draft. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I'm not totally convinced that Maizbhandariya and the Phelanthrophist group are the same person but I've left them a message about sockpuppetry. You can re-report them if there's an abuse of multiple accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Admits being the other account, both are being edited at the same time and since the warning it appears [[27]]. Warnings from User:Callanecc are on the 13th, continues editing until 04/19? The previous investigation had multiple possible socks we may need to do a check user to make sure no sleepers are out there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are beginning to tread on WP:CIR territory here. [[28]] is pretty unambiguous. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This has already been discussed that User:Maizbhandariya is having an alternate account known as Phelanthrophist thanks have a great day17:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)~ user:Maizbhandariya

Here Maizbhandariya clearly says that Phelanthrophist is his old account. But the last edit from Phelanthrophist is on 20 April as contributions denote. The note of Callanecc dates 14 April. How does the Phelanthrophist account become old then, if it has been in use after the notice. Maizbhandariya is lying there. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dear user Aqib Anjum
It can be seen at the date of both account creation you will be able to distinguish that which one is old and which one is new thanks have a great time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maizbhandariya (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ordered comments, removed bullet points, and fixed indents for layout purposes
Maizbhandariya, a crude metaphor: if you keep facing the wrong direction during prayer, after people have told you, they will keep doing it. Your intentions or your reasons or what you think works better won't stop them. What will? Listening. Fixing your mistakes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


They are both using red-links to provide emphasis on talk pages:

They both use sandboxes to develop edits, and require large numbers of edits.

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah and his/her sockpuppets were anti-Deobandi and anti-Wahhabi (see archive). Maizbhandariya has accused an editor who disagrees with him/her of being Deobandi and Wahhabi:

  • Maizbhandariya User AaqibAnjum is continuously vandalizing the pages of Wikipedia according to deobandi ideology he is not allowing me the relationship of sufi with Tablighi on article Tarika-e-Maizbhandari please help me to block this Wahhabi editorMaizbhandariya (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Please can we merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatomycbmcb/Archive into this case, and add User:Anatomy iggmc to the list of sockpuppets of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This is a new account that was created on 2 May 2020. His/her one and only edit was this one[32] which blanked a sandbox page created by one of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah's sockpuppets. The purpose of the edit was to remove the speedy deletion tag. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

22 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The above three users have already been given a checkuser block, and are listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Easytostable. According to NinjaRobotPirate a checkuser has been done and they are  Technically indistinguishable from Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.[33] There is behavioural evidence that Mariyaibrahim is the same person as Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaa.

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaa and his sockpuppets tend to edit on the subject of Islam in South Asia. Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaa is pro-Barelvi. Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaa and his socks use user sandbox pages to develop edits. He/she tends to require lots of edits.

Mariyaibrahim tried to disguise this by using two Simple English user sandboxes - see simple:Special:Contributions/Mariyaibrahim, as well as an English Wikipedia sandbox. He/she used the following steps to create the English-language Wikipedia article Karwan-I-Islami on 19 May 2020.

  1. 13 edits to Simple:User:Mariyaibrahim/carvaneislam between 01:41 and 02:17.[34][35]
  2. Blanked the page to hide evidence at Simple:User:Mariyaibrahim/carvaneislam at 02:18.[36]
  3. 10 edits to User:Mariyaibrahim/kaarwan between 02:21 and 02:37.[37][38]
  4. Blanked the page to hide evidence at User:Mariyaibrahim/kaarwan at 02:38.[39]
  5. 4 edits to Simple:User:Mariyaibrahim/carvaneislam between 02:38 and 2:47.[40]
  6. Pasted into Karwan-I-Islami at 02:49 and made a further 5 edits between 02:49 and 02:58.[41]
  7. Created infobox at Simple:User:Mariyaibrahim/carvaneislam at 03:04.[42]
  8. Made 4 edits to Karwan-I-Islami that included putting the infobox in.[43]

Please bear in mind that he/she has not attempted to make an article on Simple English Wikipedia. He/she used it as a hidden place for some user sandboxes to develop edits to try to disguise his/her editing patterns. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • @Toddy1: To clarify, you're asking us to investigate whether those accounts should be recategorized? They're already blocked – if there's no specific benefit from taking the time to handle this case I hope you don't mind if I close this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing without action per above. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavior looks like User:Maizbhandariya.

Maizbhandariya's behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarika-e-Maizbhandari with Faster than fairies behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri.. Maizbhandariya had openly personally attacked me which can be seen through his edit history, here Faster than fairies calls me an ignorant. See this. They feel both bad with "AfDs and maintenance tags" like Maizbhandariya's behavior at Shakir Ali Noorie or Saqib Iqbal Shami and Faster than fairies "disagreement" with draftification and then with AfD. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

18 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Recent new account. Per [44] moving rejected AfC of Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf to mainspace same as Faster than fairies. Per contributions various other advanced actions not usually expected of a newbie. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All socks blocked and tagged. Closing case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Majun e Baqi is a new user who has been doing some rather non-newbie stuff such as editing obscure project space pages [45] and posting on the talk pages of established users [46]. They share this sockfarm’s interest in Sufism in South Asia, having created two articles on the subject [47][48] in their two-day editing career. They also have the same habit of asking for help with their articles/edits on random users’ talk pages: compare this [49], with these edits from other socks, [50] [51] in particular the syntax: you are highly requested to please copy edit my draft vs. you are requested to kindly improve the article and you are requested to kindly have a look on this page. Requesting Checkuser to confirm and because the archives show that they tend to use several accounts at once. Spicy (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I do not know who this editor is a sockpuppet of, but his/her knowledge and ability to complete citation templates correctly suggests that this is not a new user. Content apparently generated by this user appears well written. But that is because it is stolen from other websites without attribution. For example:

  • Draft:Gyarvi Sharif 18:36, 22 June 2020 has a passage "As late afternoon approached, the shrine's premises were crowded. At that moment, the widows of the Iran-Iraq war and their daughters were given priority over others to enter the main room of the shrine to pray. On some days, unaccompanied young men are not allowed into the shrine in order to avoid any harassment of the women. As dusk fell, Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan descended on the shrine in droves to perform the Sufi ruks all night long. They gathered in a circle, wearing distinctive red amama (headgear) and chanted, twisting and twirling. If a tired dervish fell to the ground, another came forward to take his place." - this passage was copied without attribution from Hamza, Ameer (22 March 2015), "Jilani shrine: The Sufi heart of Baghdad", The Express Tribune
  • The passage "the main hall of the shrine. Inside the shrine’s masjid, the pilgrims use to covered their heads with perfumed chadars and place the chaadar on Sheikh Jilani’s grave. These coverings are kept there for a short while before they are given as gifts to anyone who wishes to have them. One chaadar remains on the grave throughout the year and is placed there by a select number of Syeds (descendants of Huzoor Ghous-e-Azam Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (RA) in a ceremony known as ghusl" was also copied without attribution from the same source.

His ability to write well, initially suggested that this was not Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. But now I realise that well written content was taken without attribution from articles on newspaper websites, etc. I think that it could be.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely), but sock  Confirmed to:
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On their own, most of the data points here aren't sufficient to link Majun e Baqi to Khadim. However, based on the totality of evidence (Amanda's CU findings, the connection between the CU-confirmed Anonymous role and past socks, interest in Sufism in SE Asia, common typos, and the fact that Majun, Khadim, and several socks in the archive almost exclusively use mobile editing/the advanced mobile editor), I think there's enough here to say that these are all the same person.  Blocked and tagged. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar username to confirmed sock Mariyaibrahim (talk · contribs), both accounts created on April 8, 2020, and did not make a first edit for at least one month later. Today is this user's first day editing, two months after creating the account, and already they have almost 300 edits, including many edits to Wikipedia space and several poor AFD nominations on clearly notable subjects. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Khadim_ahlesunnah_waljamaah/Archive#13_April_2020, this account was created by a confirmed sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. Requesting CU for sleepers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I was coming here to open up a similar SPI for the same reasons shown above. Behaviorally, this looks like a sock to me. -- Dane talk 17:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Technically indistinguishable TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged Mariyaismail as proven. It looks like the mess they created has already been mopped up, so closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Both are  Confirmed to one another and previous accounts blocked as socks of this master.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion, same promotion as before. Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ivanvector, [[52]] shows propensity to self promote and review to GA as found here [[53]]. Also look at responses in edit summaries. Doesn't deny it, taunts to prove it and uses personal attacks. This is not a new editor and this was the site of the most recent account evasion and same subject matter, quacks like a duck . Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Both Ishan87 and Phelobtimous (sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah used a strikingly similar phrase on my talk page to complain about my reverting their edits:

The interaction editor shows that Ishan87 has avoided article pages edited by Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah and his/her nearly 40 known socks. Nevertheless, they both do most of their edits on Islamic religious topics. Both are clearly Sunni

Like Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah, Ishan87's edits have tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

Both tend to avoid edit summaries - Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah did them with 8.8% of edits,[54] Ishan87 with 22.7% of edits.[55]-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.

  • "Not your father's property" seems to be a figure of speech in some parts of the world. Two people using it in the same context against the same user is a bit suspicious, yes, but I don't think rises to the level where I could justify requesting a check or block. The alternate hypothesis here is: Two editors from somewhere in the Islamic world or India—Khadim is known to live in the latter—both editing from mobile (like most people in that part of the world), both interested in Islam (ditto), without much topic overlap, used the same regional phrase to mean "hands off!" when getting reverted by an editor who, I gather, is rather active in that topic area. That's pretty plausible to me. The writing styles and technical competence are noticeably different, even in the linked diffs; and there's a big difference between 8% ESes and 23%. Closing this without action, but feel free to report again if more evidence arises.
    Oh, and the second diff contains a legal threat. If it were more recent I'd give a warning myself, but here I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the dispute to decide what to do about that, @Toddy1. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The nature of the edits, and their unnecessarily dragging editors like me [calling as a paid editor, or part of a conspiracy], Khadim is well known for abusing people that don't follow their ideas. They've opened a huge thread against some possible Deobandi institute called Darul Huda Islamic Academy or University, and several editors have been dragged whom a new editor wouldn't know (like me and Irshadpp). This discussion here and the language style likely resembles Khadim. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senior editors like Liz and Jimfbleak have also doubted here that this user possibly has had previous accounts. This should be looked upon. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spicy, Hi, Please see the likes at User talk:Maizbhandariya#With reference to block, How's can anybody be blame of sharing the similar ideology This is a game played with me by Sufism hating individual. See User talk:KhanQadriRazvi#August 2021 continues (who was mistakenly blocked as ScholarM's puppet), Why should I will be someone's puppet, how can I called this id is someone puppet because it's my user id and many more such examples. I guess this is a huge group here around several farms. For example, the one of Authordom, the one of ScholarM and the one of Khaadim. The behavioral stuff suggests that this is either ScholarM or Khaadim or could be Authordom. I'd need more time to dig more information, provided my university exams tomorrow, I'd leave this for later, if the clerk doesn't find below analysis substantial.
The type of AfD's Sabeelul is involved with like this and this gives another hint that this is a compromised account, where their only focus is to get the article deleted, and they're very high on this. Both Liz and Jim doubted their AfD presence. Authordom was very much active in such AfDs and he even went to AfD Asad Madani and Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi, but given the nature of writing style this looks a complicated case to me. Sabeelul makes edits at Sirajul Huda English Medium High School, Manjeshwar and even moves it to correct place but they do not even think to question its notability (it has no sources) but they straight way go forward and AfD Darul Huda, an institute outside the realm that his sect follows. This has been same case with Authordom. But as I said, this is a complicated case, I'd like a CU check to be performed to exactly know how many sleepers are active and where this one exactly belongs? Authordom or Khaadim? ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Additional information needed - TheAafi, can you please provide diffs from previous socks of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah showing similar writing styles, interests, etc? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spent some time looking at this. I agree the account is suspicious. However, the behavioural evidence presented here isn't specific enough to tie it to any one sockfarm, and Checkuser evidence will not be useful because all accounts in this case and the Authordom (Aboobackeramani) case are stale. I will also say that I am somewhat familiar with Khadim and this doesn't strike me as being him. I understand the concerns, but I don't think this filing is actionable at this point - I recommend, as you said, taking a closer look at the behavioural evidence and re-filing at a later date with specific diffs (if warranted). Closing this for now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Has edited Sufism in Afghanistan and nominated it for GA. That article is almost entirely written by User:Majun e Baqi, one of the confirmed socks. Okoslavia only has 38 edits but they demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia beyond what a new editor typically has, including undoing edits, citing RS, AGF, and BLP, warning for vandalism, and reporting to AIVV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • So, they're clearly not new. Their first edit had the summary "Lta", apparently a reference to Elbe555, who upon investigation indeed turned out to be a sock of Arnhem555. There's a decent chance that this account is the same person as the Bangladeshi 37.111 IPs that reverted Arnhem in the article's history. But compared to the behavior of KAW (who is in India per the archive), I don't see strong similarities. If this account becomes disruptive, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a checkuser to look into where it is they learned to edit, but I don't see basis for a check or block w/r/t KAW. I will keep an eye on the Sufism in Afghanistan article, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Khadim_ahlesunnah_waljamaah/Archive&oldid=1160810849"