Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ledenierhomme

Ledenierhomme (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:

28 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

The account Ledenierhomme was indef-blocked on 10/16 following the user repeatedly edit-warring over BLP violations. The account AzadZardost was registered two days later. Both accounts share the practice of removing notices left on their talk page, see for example AzadZardost 2, 3 compared to Ledenierhomme, 2, and 3. This new account has also made the exact same edit that Ledenierhomme had been edit-warring over at Jewish tribes of Arabia (AZ, L 2. Also compare each userpage: L and AZ. The user has been edit-warring, some might even say trolling, at articles in the ARBPIA topic area, the area where L was edit-warring over BLP violations. nableezy - 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, in the meantime can this account be blocked? Id rather not have this user trolling at my talk page. nableezy - 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. nableezy - 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

This is hilarious! This guy/girl is a nutcase. It seems there's several on Wiki who edit solely on Israel-Palestine issues. I've been accused of being someone else twice now! (the other person I am supposed to be is someone called "Doink" or "Dork" or something - will there be any consequences for this user nableezy?) AzadZardost (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • The above two are  Confirmed. That said, I would like this  Deferred some other CheckUsers for further review given the strange results on the IP, we may have a much larger sockfarm here. Tiptoety talk 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a proxy, but I'd also like another opinion. TNXMan 20:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://whatismyipaddress.com says that this IP is a "suspected network sharing device", and the checkuser data is consistent with an open proxy, but a port scan shows that all ports are filtered, and I can't seem to be able to connect to it through Firefox. A block on this address might be in order, but I don't think that we have a sockfarm - it's just a very popular proxy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since three CUs have commented, marking this as checked. DQ.alt (t) (e) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No larger sockfarm, both blocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

The last editor blocked as a sock of Ledenierhomme, InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs) was blocked on 00:05, 5 November 2010. This account was created 13.5 hours later. Both the InternetIsSeriousBusiness and the OmarKhayyam account voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy (both voting keep). The latest account has lately focused on Iraqi Turkmens, a common article with Ledenierhomme. This and past accounts also have a habit of removing tags from articles without explanation, see OK and IISB. There is another giveaway in the behavior of editors, but I would prefer not to share it publicly. If a clerk feels this evidence is not sufficient for a CU I would be glad to email additional evidence. nableezy - 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed that OmarKhayyam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). TNXMan 00:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user account was registered on November 13. The very first edit made by the user shows that the user is experienced in using wiki syntax. The edit was made to an article that Ledenierhomme had previously edited. Since then, the user has shared the proclivity to engage themselves in disputes I am involved in. This supposedly "new" user made comments at an AE request involving me that nobody had notified him of ([1]). The user also makes comments similar to Ledenierhomme. Compare this with this with both accounts making single word arguments for removing content from articles. When asked if the user had prior accounts, this account responded in a similar way as another known sock. nableezy - 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (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]

 Confirmed TNXMan 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Two new users popping up with a vendetta against RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has accumulated a good number of enemies for reasons that should become obvious after looking at his userpage), willing to revert war (to the point of blocking) to protect that vendetta. I believe the sockpuppeteer is actually someone's bad cop sock (contributions show someone not here to work within a community). Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I was halfway through submitting a similar case when this was created. I wrote that RT101798 was created at 12.44 on 7 December, and blocked at 18:31 on 7 December for violation of the one revert rule at 1948 Palestinian exodus. The editor was also edit warring at Bolshevik, insisting against guidelines on the US spelling of "labour". Ntiabt was created at 12.48 on 7 December, and started editing on 8 December. This editor also started edit-warring over the spelling of "labour", both on Bolshevik and on Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The editor ignored polite warnings to stop[2], and continued to edit war with US-centric edit summaries. After I reverted three timmes, the editor (claiming to be a new user) submitted a 3RR case against me, accusing me also of bullying and of pretending to be an admin. I have self-reverted my latest edit. It looks as though these accounts were deliberately established in order to draw me in to an edit war apparently unconnected to the Israel-Palestine area. I am certain that these two are sockpuppets of each other, and it seems likely that they are both socks of a previously banned user. RolandR (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually already blocked both parties indefinitely; at this point, I'm just operating under WP:RBI.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magog the Ogre (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 December 2010

Although both accounts have been blocked for incompetent sockpuppetry, I still think a Checkuser is appropriate. An editor creating two accounts within five minutes, edit warring in the I-P topic area, targeting my other areas of interest, and showing obvious knowledge of Wikipedia procedures, is very unlikely to be a new user. It looks like block evasion. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • This is not a hard call, since Nableezy pointed out that the first editor's log shows him creating the second account. It is still worth a checkuser looking for sleepers, I think. Also RT101798, who was created on 7 December 4 minutes before Ntbiabt, could be a sock of someone else active on I/P articles and currently blocked or topic-banned. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Yeah, something isn't quite right here. CU for sleepers, mostly. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: The name you are looking for is almost certainly User:Ledenierhomme; these two can be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive.  Frank  |  talk  13:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence has to be weighed. These two are certainly abusing multiple accounts (didn't need CU for that); likely they are Ledenierhomme on technical grounds but there might be more than one sockmaster in the same very busy space. Other accounts didn't seem as closely related; this one was likely enough to indicate moving it to this page.  Frank  |  talk  16:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

1) Same articles, 2) same frustrations as recent sock [3], 3) other indications involving writing style. This may be a coincidence, especially given sensitivity of article, or it may not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The last two socks of this user to be identified were RT101798, created 12.44 on 7 December, and Ntbiabt, created at 12.48 on 7 December. This account, edit-warring in the same way on the same articles, was created at 12.54 on 7 December. It seems likely that other sleepers were created at the same time; a checkuser would help identify them. RolandR (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed plus Ntbiabt (talk · contribs), which was already blocked a week ago. Underlying IPs hardblocked. –MuZemike 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Continuing to edit-war on 1948 Palestinian exodus, making the same reversion as recent confirmed socks, with very similar summaries. RolandR (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2010 (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]
  • IPs blocked. I'd recommend semiprotection if the abuse continues. Nakon 04:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Continuing to edit war with the same edits on the same articles as several already-banned socks of this serial vandal, including Nakba Day[4][5] and Rights of Englishmen[6] [7] RolandR (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (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]

 Confirmed TNXMan 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked. Nakon 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same pattern of editing: POV edits to articles on the Middle East and Islam; edit-warring on Rights of Englishmen; attempts to draw me into an edit-war over varieties of English spelling. An obvious sock. RolandR (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is now also edit-warring over templates on my own talk page; please block. RolandR (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2010 (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]
It may be technically unlikely, but the editing pattern over a range of different articles (see also Expédition d'Irlande) is overwhelming proof. Note also the similar choice of user name. Could this be a proxy? RolandR (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the behavioral evidence is strong. As for the IP, no it's not a proxy but it does appear to be a very dynamic range...possibly belonging to a mobile carrier, so I wouldn't go off of technical evidence alone. Tiptoety talk 17:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

New editor continuing with the tendentious edits and edit-warring of previous socks; eg on Rights of Englishmen[8][9][10], Sharia[11][12]. RolandR (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Also active, like previous socks, on Iraqi Turkmens. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (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]
 Confirmed LaoZi81 is the same as OmarKhayyam (talk · contribs). There were some proxies being used, so I've blocked those. TNXMan 12:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

As with sockmaster, edit-warring on Israel and the apartheid analogy, Expédition d'Irlande, Iraqi Turkmens and Rights of Englishmen, and related talk pages. This unusual combination of interests is clearly indicative of Ledenierhomme. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (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]
25 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This IP shares the characteristic of following editors around that Ledenierhomme had been in conflict with (me) and reverting their edits on various articles. The IP also shares the same focus on articles dealing with Arab Jews (see past socks edits to Jewish tribes of Arabia and Kurds. The user has in the past used anonymization services, so I am not requesting a CU. However, I think the edits made make a fairly clear case for blocking under WP:DUCK. nableezy - 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also compare this comment by a past sock to the latest by this IP here. nableezy - 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

I am not, never have before, registered with Wikipedia. Read about certain articles and editors on wikibias.com. Looked like fun. I am sure any checking of my IP will reveal I am not impersonating anyone else. But it's great to see that the processes I have observed in these last few hours confirmed everything I read on Wikibias about these particular users! Anyone who challenges their ownership of articles in the Israel-Palestine area is immediately ganged up on, bullied, "blocked", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you can't be serious can you! That's it?! That's how this works? I'll be fascinated to see how this works out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Well, I've blocked the range.[13] Quack. Some may say this user is AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs), but whoever it is they're on an anonymising proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can call it a day, then. Please report if more activity occurs. TNXMan 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
05 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

These IPs continue the distinctive edit pattern of Ledenierhomme, edit-warring on pages relating to Kurdistan [14][15][16][17][18][19], and stalking and reverting me on pages related to Palestine [20][21]. Other editors have also recognised these as socks, and some may already have been blocked [22], but the abuse continues. RolandR (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added another, which continues LDH's edit-warring on Rights of Englishmen[23], as well as edit-warring on Arab Nationalism[24] and reverting my edits on Respect Party[25].RolandR (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (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]
  • information Administrator note I've hardblocked 93.91.196.0/24 for two weeks; I've also blocked the 95.170 IP for two weeks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts are coontinuing the edit-warring for which several socks of this serial puppeteer have already been blocked, including on 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, Rights of Englishmen, Amanda Lindhout, Murat Karayılan, List of countries and organizations that list the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a terrorist group, George Galloway. RolandR (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that confirmed socks of User:AFolkSingersBeard and User:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles, as well as other socks of unspecified sockmasters (eg User:JPTINS3000) have also been edit-warring, with remarkably similar edits, on some of these articles.RolandR (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The registered account has been blocked; but this user is apparently continuing to edit-war using several IPs, including User:93.91.196.121, User:93.91.196.119, User:93.91.196.123, User:93.91.196.116 andUser:93.91.196.118. RolandR (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (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]
06 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Continuing with the pattern of following Tiamut and myself around to revert our edits. The recent edit summaries show that the user was feigning ignorance in his edit-summaries at Palestinian people, like other socks of the user, such as Religionsworstnightmare. All of the users edits are reverts of myself or Tiamut or of others who had reverted him. Also, several of the socks of Ledenierhomme/AFolkSingersBeard used similar names, such as OmarKhayyam, HarunAlRashid and NahlaHussain2008 nableezy - 14:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC) 14:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

HaHagana1948 (talk · contribs), noted by WilliamH below as a "likely relation", is clearly a puppet of Ldh, as shown by the interest in Irish Republlican and Kurdish as well as Palestine-related articles; and by following me to revert my edits to British political articles. RolandR (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

 Checking.... WilliamH (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user shares the same characteristics of the following editors: User:MamRostam03, User:NahlaHussain2008, User:KakaSur, and User:OmarKhayyam who have been in conflict with me and who has been manipulating statistics and facts in the Iraqi Turkmens article.Turco85 (Talk) 03:39, 26 January 2012 (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]
28 January 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This supposedly "new" user has edited only once so far, however, it is pretty obvious that it is User:Ledenierhomme as they have done this identical edit as the sockpuppet "User:Twafotfs". They are basically trying to delete any mention of "Turkish" or "Turkey" within the article and are manipulating statistical as well as academic citations. Turco85 (Talk) 23:55, 28 January 2012 (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]

They're already blocked and I see no sleepers, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


AbdolRezaCCIH’s current editwar on Turks in Europe looks completely identical to the way in which User:Ledenierhomme was edit-warring in the Iraqi Turkmens article under the name User:MamRostam03. Furthermore, AbdolRezaCCIH’s first edit was Iraqi-Turkmen related, but it seems as though they decided to move away from the obvious spot light and started their usual ways on the Turks in Europe article instead, thinking nobody would notice him. If one also looks at the Talk:Turks in Europe page they will see that just like in Talk:Iraqi Turkmens they object to the use of academic citations which they disagree with. They also seem to think that their editwarring actions are justified because they have written on the discussion page e.g. in the edit summary User:Ledenierhomme will revert an edit and simply write "see discussion", thinking that to be a valid excuse for their actions. Thus, these also seem to be traces of User:Ledenierhomme personality traits. Turco85 (Talk) 12:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Turco85 (Talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (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]
 Confirmed - also Pilusi3 (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Regarding GAYousefSaanei: This "new" user is not currently edit warring, however it is quite clear that this is User:Ledenierhomme by the use of language that they are using and their typical obsession with the Turish people/population. They have continued to disregard academic citations regarding the Iraqi Turkmens in the article Turks in the Arab world, and more recently their new target seems to be the population of Turks in Algeria.

Regarding Tommymert: Their history also shows an obsession with the Iraqi Turkmens. Furthermore User:Ledenierhomme has used both these accounts to have a fake conversation in Talk:Turkish people regarding the population of the Turks in Algeria.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Typical examples include their continuous disregard of any academic citations, see for example:
User:Ledenierhomme always goes on about sources needing to be "peer-reviewed" and of "quality", and then objects to all academic sources which have been cited. One can see this sort of behaviour on numerous occasions in Talk:Iraqi Turkmens.
  • More recently they have taken an interest in Turks in Algeria. Their continuous disrespectful manner on my user page [37], and their total disregard for citations are clear signs of Ledenierhomme's behaviour.
  • The accounts User:GAYousefSaanei and User:Tommymert seem to have been used by user:Ledenierhomme to create an illusion of a genuine debate over the population of Turks in Algeria, see here: [38], yet the account Tommymert was hardly being used since 2011. Turco85 (Talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

You're about to be made to look rather foolish my friend... GAYousefSaanei (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" - I would like this be to noted for the record. I would very much like an admin to examine this user's patterns of editing on Turk-related articles - especially with references to population numbers/estimates. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is not a personal attack, I truly believe that you are Ledenierhomme and the evidence above illustrates why. You have continuously gone against wiki policies and have shown disrespect to various users, but most importantly of all, you continuously reject any academic citation which you do not agree with, which is evident in almost every account you have ever created. This behaviour needs to stop. Feel free to call upon admins, but your behaviour is extremely blatant. Turco85 (Talk) 21:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, the website of the Turkish Embassy in Algeria is not "an academic citation", and all I have done is use Talk pages to address this issue. Second, please quote where I have "shown disrespect" to "various users". Third, which "wiki policies" have I continuously gone against? Fourth, I am not Ledenierhomme as you are about to find out. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to fix some of the problematic edits Turco85 has made to various articles. Where he continues to accuse me of being a sockpuppet[43]. I do hope he is sanctioned for this ridiculous allegation. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAYousefSaanei, please explain your relation to AbdolRezaCCIH. --MuZemike 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and User:Pilusi3. --MuZemike 00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation to anyone on Wikipedia. I don't know how you've made this connections, but surely any technical information available to you will show that I am not any of these people listed above by you or Turco85. I have never used Wikipedia before, that is a fact. I am using this computer at my work office, so maybe that is causing some confusion with regards to IP addresses... GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand this correctly, all of your coworkers are conspiring to take control of the multitude of Turkey-related articles that Ledenierhomme has been trying to do, is that correct? --MuZemike 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, that user User:Pilusi3 didn't edit on a single Turk-related article that I can see?... GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AbdolRezaCCIH edited on "Turks in Europe", nothing else. AbdolReza is a common name in Azerbaijan (Turk)... GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd; I see edits by all users on those types of articles: Turkish people, Turks in Europe, Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne (who is Palestinian), and pretty much all of Pilusi3's edits, which are obviously pro-Palestinian. Are you seriously saying that none of you are related to each other, though I can plainly see that all three of you are? --MuZemike 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone called "Walter Guinness" is Palestinian? Pilus4 is pro-Palestinian? What has that got to do with me? You can "plainly see it"? Well, there's clearly something wrong. If you block me, it will simply prove that. Do as you will, I am not going to plead my innocence, it's completely ridiculous. Maybe ISPs in my country operate differently to yours and you're working on false assumptions. Whatever. I've said my piece. You're threatening to block an innocent person, who has contributed to improving numerous articles, while you're going to let this maniac above off scot-free..... (someone who, literally, invented an ethnic group for Wikipedia!) GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour as well as your attitude is clearly the same as Ledenierhomme, you have even deleted my comments on Talk:Turks in Algeria. Turco85 (Talk) 01:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me guess, that's something that Ledenierhomme did? Deleted insulting talkpage comments? Puhleeze. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't you mean nutcase instead of "maniac"? --MuZemike 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Enjoying yourself? GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So it's only a coincidence that you came aboard about a week after AbdolRezaCCIH was indefinitely blocked? --MuZemike 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well how many people the part of my country (Azeri/Turkic Iran) do you think edit on Turkic-related topics every week? Is it really just me and one other guy? Or, I should say, do you think it could only possibly be one person? GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion I had with you on your talk page (see here) also illustrates that you are Ledenierhomme. You continuously object to the use of a range of sources which clearly meet wiki standards, yet you hardly ever show any sources yourself. Furthermore, in Talk:Iraqi Turkmens you objected to the use of the terms "Turks of Iraq" stating that "there are no sources which say this" then I showed you a wide range of sources which actually do state it, now you are doing exactly the same in the Turks in Algeria article, you now say that the terms "Turco Algerians" and "Algerian Turks" are made up by me and that they do not exists... how an earth do you expect one to really believe that you are not a sockpuppet? (That's a rhetorical question by the way, I've had enough of reading lies). I've tried to assume good faith with almost every account which you have created, I've actually lost count how many you've had now, but you contiune with the same pattern over and over again...Turco85 (Talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Anyone who questions your made-up ethnicities "Turco-Algerians" (funny how you can't find a source for that one, isn't it?) is a sockpuppet of Ledenierhomme. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason which make me think that you are Ledenierhomme is because your debates are normally based on the figures regarding Turkish communities, this is clear in Turks in Europe, Iraqi Turkmens, and now Turks in Algeria. You have never tried to actually help improve an article by helping to find sources or expanding sub-headings, your arguments are almost always focused on the info boxes or numerical-based information.Turco85 (Talk) 02:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep inflating numbers to ridiculous levels, then people are going to keep questioning you. I mean, seriously, let's get down to brass tacks here: do you honestly believe that there are between 600,000 and 2,000,000 Turks living in Algeria, right now? Answer me that question. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: Please keep any comments here on topic. Sockpuppet investigations is not yet another place where you can carry on an argument, disagreement, or dispute. If you cannot come to an agreement, this is not the place to continue arguing; consider utilizing one of the forms of dispute resolution. J.delanoygabsadds 02:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well what about the recent "conversation" on Talk:Turkish people between User:Tommymert and User:GAYousefSaanei see here. I believe that both these accounts were used by Ledenierhomme in order to try and create a debate over the population of Turks in Algeria which looked genuine. If one looks at Tommymert's edits they will see that one of their last edits was also about the population of Iraqi Turkmens in the Template:Turks, moreover, this user does not seem to be very active; thus, it's quite ironic that they suddenly appear at the same time that "GAYousefSaanei" is planning to do what Ledenierhomme always does. Clearly Ledenierhomme has many more accounts that we still have not been able to identify...Turco85 (Talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just add anyone you've ever had an interaction with who's disagreed with you, it'll save you some time. Admins note: he is not addressing the issues/content at all. Just attack, attack, attack. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Concurring with Alison's findings, GAYousefSaanei has been blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 05:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment:what about the status of "User:Tommymert"?Turco85 (Talk) 13:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making that one talk page comment is not sufficient for a check. Seeing that Tommymert has never popped up in any checks over the past years I see no reason to believe that the account is related. Amalthea 11:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why I have concerns is not just because of that talk page. There is also the fact that they hardly ever seem to edit, yet one of their last edits prior to their edit in the talk page, ironically, also tried to remove statistics regarding Iraqi Turkmens as well, just like Ledenierhomme would normally do. It's just all a little too coincidental, especially since Ledenierhomme, under the name of "GAYousefSaanei" responded so quickly to "Tommymert". Turco85 (Talk) 14:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP 31.146.35.112 has been recently been in an edit war with myself on the Turkish people article. I'm pretty convinced that this is Ledenierhomme and that they are continuously stalking me. Their edit summaries are almost identical to what they have written in the past articles and, like usual, although they write a message on the talk page, they show no form of evidence to support their arguments. Hence, their traits have generally shown that they think that writing a comment in the discussion page automatically gives them the write to revert other users contributions. I believe that Ledenierhomme still has numerous accounts and that they spend a lot of time watching what I, and other users, do as they revert my edits in a matter of hours.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

  • This anon never contibuted until I began improving the Turkish people article (just like in Iraqi Turkmens and in the Turks in Algeria articles). Furthermore, their only other edits have been military-based, just like Ledenierhomme did.
  • I recently wrote on User:slakr's talk page [44] to comment about the edit war, a mere 10 hours later this anon also was there. Evidently, they watch my contributions vigorously.
  • Regarding the Turks within the Seljuk's era, this anon continuously removes the word "Turks", which is exactly what Ledenierhomme was doing in the Iraqi Turkmens article (see here).
  • Ledenierhomme has also always complained of the estimates regarding the Turks calling them "crazy". As this current anon they wrote this in the discussion page [45] which could be compared with what they wrote in Turks in Algeria [46]. Turco85 (Talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: within this users last message to User:slakr (here) they use phrases such as "POV"; in my opinion, new users on wikipedia hardly use such phrases. "LOL's" and "OMG's" are also common among Ledenierhomme. Moreover, they have removed the sockpuppet template from their userpage just like Ledenierhomme did with "User:GAYousefSaanei". Turco85 (Talk) 10:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Ummm "Alison".... excuse me? But what is an "open proxy" and what does "hardblock that IP" mean?

Am I to take it that you're going to block me from editing Wikipedia? Is that your intention?

On what grounds? An "open proxy" is, according to Wikipedia, "a proxy server that is accessible by any Internet user." I can assure you, nobody has any access to this IP other than me and the other people I live and share it with. I use a SilkNet DSL connection in Tbilisi, and I'd be happy to email you my phone number here.

If I am supposedly a sockpuppet, then surely you have some way of proving it through technical information? IP addresses, operating systems, etc?

31.146.35.112 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • no Unnecessary - as the IP mentioned above is an open proxy. I'd go right ahead and hardblock that IP - Alison ❤ 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open proxy blocked by DeltaQuad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The editor has an improbable set of overlaps with previous socks. Example articles - Charles de Gaulle, Turks in Algeria, Economy of Iran, George Galloway [47] [48] [49] [50] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 20 March 2013 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Per evidence above. Liam has similar areas of interest similar editing times as Ledenierhomme, similarly aggressive attitude in talk page comments and edit summaries. Even strikingly similar complaints: Liam, confirmed sock. All confirmed socks in the archive are stale, and Leden is also known for using proxies, but perhaps a comparison to old CU logs will be enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can say is that it's the same country, though i'm not talking about a large country like Russia, the US, etc. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the confirmation of behavioral and technical evidence, I consider this confirmed. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Sock blocked and tagged by Someguy1221. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 April 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

130.204.81.170's edits are similar to the edits of "User:LiamFitzGilbert", "User:GAYousefSaanei", "User:Twafotfs", User:MamRostam03, User:NahlaHussain2008, User:KakaSur, and User:OmarKhayyam regarding the status of Turks in the Arab World and the minorities populations. Continuous edit wars and removal of citations, as well as their approach on discussion pages, are evident that this is Ledenierhomme up to his/her old tricks. See for example [51], [52], [53], [54] whereby Ledenierhomme argues that there are no Turks in these countries at all. Their edits in Template:Turks has even removed the populations of the Turks in the Arab countries see [55] and [56].

As for User:Lulani i medvegjes, they have only ever edited 6 times, 3 of which have been in Turks in Kosovo; and again, it has only been a minor edit to alter the population see [57]. The above anon has also argued that this same edit should be in Template:Turks. Turco85 (Talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (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]
  • information Administrator note Blocking Lulani for obvious sockpuppetry. Will look at the IP later, or maybe someone else will get to it before me. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale. NativeForeigner Talk 04:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP address 81.12.209.54 (talk) edited Rights of Englishmen, a page often frequented by past Ledenierhomme socks, prior to editing Arab nationalism, restoring an edit, by [editing a page from a month earlier. Two minutes later the InsufferableKnuts (talk · contribs) is created, which then goes on to perform a massive revert on the Arab nationalism page, and has since performed that revert several times. I think its fairly obvious that InsufferableKnuts (talk · contribs) is 81.12.209.54 (talk), and the edit to Rights of Englishmen suggests a connection with Ledenierhomme. nableezy - 07:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC) 07:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of closing just ask for more detail. I'll put it together in the next few minutes. nableezy - 00:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by the IP to Rights of Englishmen, dealing with the topic as being a bsis for the American Revolution, is similar to past edits by Ledenierhomme socks such as Ledenierhomme, FrankieRyan, Shorsh1991, 95.170.202.83. Past socks have also been active in editing the section that this user has repeatedly been restoring to Arab nationalism, such as 95.170.202.83 and LiamFitzGilbert. nableezy - 01:01, 18 July 2013 (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]
  • Honestly, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see that's so obvious. Feel free to reopen this case if you'd like to provide a more detailed explanation, preferably including diffs from old Leden socks for comparison. Even if the new account and IP are the same person, that is not necessarily a violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, thank you. Blocked and tagged, the new account indef, the IP for a week. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive&oldid=1082481289"