The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Almaqdisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Aboosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alathiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Elizmr 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Aboosh's first two edits were on an AFD discussion page:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam.

• Aboosh was able to fill in vote using correct format and used edit summary even though he had not made an edit before and did not even have a welcome note with helpful advice on his page.
• Aboosh's POV is similar to that of Almaqdisi who has a very strong opinion on the issue under discussion.
• One of Aboosh's only two edits on Wikipedia thus far was to defend Almaqdisi:

  "Strong Delete:Amoruso, I do not see any uncivil behaviour that Almaqdisi has showed in his comments. He has explained to you the concept of Fiqh in Islam. His explanation is very accurate, and there is nothing uncivil about it. It is a very extensive well-founded science and you cannot dispute whatever you feel like. This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY. Also, Beit Or, Islam does not open a wide door for discussion and interpertations as many non-muslims wish for it to be. So, this discussion must be ended and for this page to be deleted.Aboosh 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)"

• Alathiri was welcomed by Almaqdisi, his edit to Al-Aqsa Mosque was promptly "organized" by Almaqdisi, and his other few other edits consisted of detailed discussion on Talk:Dome of the Rock and then a comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam. All in all the pattern is suspicious for a new user, and it fits well as a sockpuppet of Almaqdisi. Tewfik^Talk 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I believe Elizmr is correct. Note that both Almaqdisi and Aboosh used the same type of reference to user names in which the user names appear "red and in-active".[1] [2] Note that he's referring to me out of all users, supporting "Almaqdisi" in his same language, and then also choosing Beit Or out of all people, another user that Almaqdisi often said the same things to in the Al Aqsa article [3].

Note the very similar use of the language "subject is not open for non-Islamic interpertations" [4] in many of his edits : [5], use of "muslim scholars" often [6], the word "masjid", and him referring to Beit Or [7] etc. He also recently was found to upload images under false pretext of it being a creation of his own even though it wasn't as part of this battle. [8] Amoruso 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Response:

• Having other users strongly arguing and supporting my opinion does not mean that this accusation is acceptable.
• If I need help or support in a topic, I request that officially from a knowledgable person by a kind request at his user page. These are easy to find by looking through the various catagories WikiPedia offers.
• The fact that this new user, Abooshi, started his Wikipedia Journey at this article is not my problem really.
• I keep discussions logical and authentic, and hate forging of facts, particularly to al-Aqsa mosque related articles and Palestine in general, stuff I am very knowledgable about.
• I am only a commentator at the discussion page, it is not me who is proposing to start with AfD.
• Many users replied directly to Amoruso because he is the one who started this article with the support of Chesdovi. Both of whom are found not knowledgable enough in regard to interpreting and using the Islamic sources. My properly cited contributions can be found at Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine. I keep high quality standards in my citations.
• I believe it is my right to show my opinion regarding this article when I consistently find an attempt by the user Amoruso to force edits that can only be described as a disinformation attempt in regard to al-Aqsa mosque in general. His edits are driven by wrong and discredit beliefs such as the one in which he argues that the Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [9], [10]. This is actually a main reason why many users believes he created an article which is having an AfD case [11].

Thanks. Almaqdisi 07:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you could have maintained some credibility if you argued that Aboosh is your friend that you asked to join wiki for this purpose, but not you exactly. That would have made atleast some sense. I think by now the evidence is clear it's indeed a sock puppet. You should have focused on a cover-up story rather than irrelevant attacks. Amoruso 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso, the fact that you like to accuse me when it is proven that your inputs to Wikipedia are all wrong and reverted again and again should tell the credibility you are seeking here. I do not need a cover up story for a Hoax you are coming up with. It may be as well that this user Aboosh is a friend of yours who created this user name for you to make such an allegation. If you continue your behaviour this way, you will be reported for your continuous personal attacks and accusation nonstopping against those who keep cleaning up behind your propoganda and wrong edits like these [12], [13] and this [14] ! Almaqdisi 00:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, please don't report me for "wrong edits" :) (is "The Prophet" upset?) Also I suggest you don't do it on the WP:3RR page again :) Thanks for amusing me . Amoruso

As long as we stay WP:COOL and factual, it is always my pleasure. Almaqdisi 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reiterating my discomfort with this issue, as I have explained under my profile Aboosh, I am looking forward to have this issue resolved ASAP and for Almaqdisi's name and my name to be cleared and for this episode not to be repeated again without providing the accused party the benifit of doubt. Aboosh 08:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Almaqdisi's response is adequate. Aboosh probably only supported Almaqdisi and perhaps emulated his style a bit because he seemed the most vocal proponent for deletion and because his arguments seemed the most persuasive and compelling in terms of the theology this article sticks a red hot poker into. I would have waited for more evidence of a consistent pattern before pursuing this.--Amerique ^dialectics 04:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for commenting (although it was a bit of an attack on the speed with which I reported from someone who clearly has a "dog in this fight" (to use a really unpleasant expression) since you were the one who placed the AFD that Aboosh emerged during.) I agree that the response is probably is adequate, and I have nothing personal against either of these guys, but we need an impartial admin to come and check their IP addresses to make sure they are different and then the whole thing will be settled. Right now we just have "he said; he said". I hope someone will come and check this out soon. Elizmr 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Tewfik: Tewfik, I find it strange and quite selective and picky that you add User:Alathiri to the list of suspects. If I will follow the same standards in chasing new users, do you suggest me to file sock puppets complaints against User:Beit Or and User:Amoruso as their input is quite the same? Good luck Tewfik, and hope to have better WikiPedia editing time with you. Cheers. Almaqdisi 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha input the same ?? Take a look at contribs... are you saying you're not connected to Alathiri?? Amoruso 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is best taken to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]