Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Drork

Drork (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 14 2010, 14:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

Drork was topic-banned from the A/I conflict area yesterday. He said that he did not "recognize" the topic ban and would continue editing in the area and quickly did so. Drork was then blocked. Today, at 11:35 UTC the Gderot account was registered and immediately entersthe same discussion that Drork was involved in, arguing the same point as Drork and casting the same aspersions about another users motives. nableezy - 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I saw this strange message on my user page. I didn't really understand what to do with it, so I asked for some help from a friend who knows a bit about Wikipedia. I hope I'm writing this in the right place. I understand that you think I am the same person as Drork. I don't know who he is. What exactly do you want me to tell him? Gderot (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + A (Community ban/sanction evasion and arbcom ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nableezy 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed looks fairly duckish to be honest, but I'd appreciate it if a CU could please check the link, thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely --Deskana (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indefinitely blocking the sock account and, in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, am also blocking DrorK for six months for his use of a sockpuppet to evade his block and topic ban.  Sandstein  11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 20 2010, 21:33 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

Drork was given a six month block following the last SPI for using a sock to evade a block and a topic ban. Since then, the user Kalamiyat was registered and immediately picks up the same argument on the same page, Talk:All-Palestine Government. The user has a similar style in the way they format their comments and in the way they invariably turn the attention to another user's presumed motives. nableezy - 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't understand how you manage things here on Wikipedia. What is a sock puppet and who is Drork? I have Nableezy and Harlan Wilkerson leaving threats on my personal talk page and insulting me in public on other talk pages. What do you want from me? People write errors in articles and then threaten those who try to correct them, and even give detailed explanations? Believe me, I can find better ways to spend my time. Apparently this project is not welcoming to new editors despite all your sweet smiles in lectures and press releases. Kalamiyat (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by nableezy - 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Changed code letter to A, as Drork's block was an AE block, and he is also evading his indefinite topic ban.  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check and possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note  Looks like a duck to me, both master and sock blocked indef. Tim Song (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 22 2010, 19:49 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

Since Kalamiyat was blocked on 4/20 Nymechein was registered (on the 21st). One of the "new" user's first edits was to revert Harlan wilkerson at the same talk page Drork and Harlan were arguing at ([1]). Since then this user has been harassing Harlan claiming that Harlan has another account and has moved from the All-Palestine Government page to the British Mandate of Palestine page where the same battle continues (whether or not the mandates established following WW1 were "states"). The user continues to insult Harlan, just as the last two socks and the Drork account prior to that. nableezy - 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after Nymechein was blocked the account Dowletani was created on the Hebrew Wikipedia and automatically created here with SUL. Users only edit is to continue the argument with Harlan at the British Mandate talk page ([2]). This could probably be added to the above report, but in case it needs to be endorsed again I made a separate request. nableezy - 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drork, I know you know Arabic better than that. The song says "Now I have a gun, take me to Palestine with you", it is a song about a woman who wants to join the men and fight (she later says "O men, I wish to live or die like a man"). nableezy - 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after Nymechein was blocked, Nacnikparos (talk · contribs) was created. Since then he has continued the same battles at Quds Day and the All-Palestine Government page. nableezy - 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CentralWhite, another all-but-certain one tries to re-open Nacnikparos' topic. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. Nableezy wrote in Arabic on his userpage: give me a gun, I want to go to Palestine. He is carrying a gun and shoot anyone he doesn't like. This list includes numerous users he complained about. The admins always support him. His gun is indeed very intimidating. Dowletani (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nableezy 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Can we please get a rangeblock here? Also sleeper check please. Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Merged two reports. New sock blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also blocked & tagged the two new socks. Apparently I'm an "extremely bad politician" or whatnot. Tim Song (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like a range block is possible right now. :( He's on too many different ranges. Dominic·t 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 25 2010, 04:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Tarc [edit]

Quesilophonosis account created 04:28, 24 April 2010. First edit is at 4:33 to Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy , as well as all subsequent edits to that and the main article page. Carrying on the same exact arguments as yesterday's confirmed socks have. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a few more this morning, as the Q one was banned for 3Rr last night. ZSnomi also filed for a username vilation, as it is a combo of 3 user's names that have reverted him over the past day. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added another, who repeated the same edit RolandR (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

All blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 25 2010, 15:46 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Admits to being the same editor as previously blocked socks: [3], [4] RolandR (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined  as this is a duck, previous sleeper checks haven't turned anything up as he appears to create accounts as he needs them, rather than farming. Recommend just blocking the account. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 25 2010, 21:24 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Continuing talk-page warring and attacks on other editors after yet another sock blocked: [5]. RolandR (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Does this apparent slip-up from an Israeli ISP finally give us an IP, or possibly a range, to block? Tarc (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note IP hardblocked 24 hours. –MuZemike 21:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 26 2010, 07:15 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Another admitted sock of multiply-blocked editor: [6]. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • information Administrator note Hardblocked 48h. Tim Song (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 27 2010, 23:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Yet another admitted sockpuppet of this persistent puppeteer: [7], [8]. RolandR (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note IP blocked for 55 hours. TNXMan 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 1 2010, 16:42 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Rolhar's account was created on 1 May 2010. He immediately showed up at an I/P conflict article and took part in a discussion using the same arguments as Drork's previous socks, Nymechein and Dowletani and reverting edits. Drork has been using sockpuppet names formed from editor user names to avoid an ARBCOM ban. This user name is based upon RolandR's and my own user name. Diffs:[9] and [10]

harlan (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 3 2010, 10:01 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Drork has been using sockpuppets to avoid an ARBCOM ban. HarQayam's account was created on 2 May 2010 and he immediately began posting at the British Mandate of Palestine article talk page repeating the same arguments in the style employed by Drork and his socks.

Diffs: [11] and [12]

harlan (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

Wilkerson is unhappy with the fact I bring sources that refute his unacceptable edits, so he makes strange accusations against me. That's the best way to win a debate isn't it? Call security and ask them to expel your opponent from the room. I hope the gentlemen here will send Wilkerson to do some homework and be careful about his edits instead of trying to silence his opponents. HarQayam (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some of Wilkerson's edits in the past few days:

  • Forcing his version once - [13]
  • Twice - [14]
  • Third time - [15]

There are at least three people who object his edits and gave very good explanations to their objection. I suppose they are all "sockpuppets" (whatever that means). HarQayam (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more interesting evidence about Wilkerson. This is his list of contributions [16]. Almost all of them are on the same subject, and in almost all of them he repeats his controversial claims and insist they should be adopted despite strong legitimate objection. Here [17] he tries to intimidate another user who objects to his edits. HarQayam (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Page semi'd for a week. Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 4 2010, 11:40 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Drork has been using sockpuppets to avoid an ARBCOM ban. The IP is using the same arguments and editing the same articles as Drork. After the Talk:British Mandate of Palestine was protected the IP continued to edit the article: [18]

moved his mantra and personal attacks to Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine [19]

and started abusing my User talk page: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

harlan (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Block evasion is only one of the reasons this IP should have been blocked. Regardless, they've been blocked for 55 hours. TNXMan 11:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 5 2010, 13:21 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Admits here to beinng a sock of already blocked HarQayam; although editing from IP 192.115.29.151, signs as (already blocked)109.66.21.139. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Blocked for 55 hours. TNXMan 13:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 5 2010, 15:33 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Another admitted sock[27] of this prolific puppeteer, continuing the same edit wars. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 6 2010, 18:01 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Another admitted sock[28] of the banned puppeteer, continuing the same edit wars.[29]

harlan (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Blocked. TNXMan 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 7 2010, 14:13 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Admits to being banned sock HarQayam [30] resumes same arguments at same article. [31] harlan (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Another one at 79.181.56.128 (talk · contribs). Any reconsideration again for taking some greater action against Bezeqint.net? Tarc (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd the talk page. An unpleasant step, but we'll see if it helps.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Blocked the IP. I'm doubtful it will be much help.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the second IP as well. TNXMan 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 8 2010, 09:40 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Several more IPs through which this serial vandal appears to be continuing edit wars on State of Palestine, United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Semi'd 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date May 9 2010, 02:53 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Suspected sock of Drork continuing edit war at British Mandate for Palestine [32] and Palestine (disambiguation) [33] harlan (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Semi'd 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 9 2010, 17:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by RolandR [edit]

Another admitted sock of this serial vandal, who writes " as you can see, blocking me is futile"[34] RolandR (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note IP blocked 24 hours. Drork's page semi-protected. Elockid (Talk) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 10 2010, 21:19 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Suspected sock of Drork. Returned to State of Palestine article and resumed the repetition of Drork's arguments for the Nth time, e.g. [35] and [36]

harlan (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Blocked for 48 hours. I'm seriously tempted to block the whole Bezeq if this continues, to hell with collateral damage. I'll check w/ Shirik about a filter. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 12 2010, 13:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Yet another suspected sock of Drork on the State of Palestine talk page. The IP is making the very same unsourced analysis, arguments, and analogies previously employed by Drork. [37] harlan (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note There's really no point in blocking the IP since he is abusing the ability to easily switch IPs. Talk:State of Palestine which seems to be his recent target I've semi-protected for a week. Note, Drork over the past 3 weeks or so has been the only IP/new user editing that page. Elockid (Talk) 18:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


03 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

Yet another suspected sock of Drork. Celshiqma is a new account created on 9 May 2010. The editor is making the very same unsourced analysis, arguments, and uncivil comments at Talk:British Mandate for Palestine [38]

harlan (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. Tim Song (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Yep, that's him. Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed
as socks of Drork. Amalthea 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter has been adjusted. Tim Song (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
20 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Harlan wilkerson [edit]

This user account appears to be another sock that is being utilized by Drork to avoid a topic ban. He appeared immediately after the last block and is edit warring at the same articles, using the same arguments, in the same style as Drork:

British Mandate for Palestine [39] [40] [41] [42]
Palestine [43] [44] [45]

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan [46] [47] [48] [49]
Palestinian people [50] [51] [52]

harlan (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Behaviorally likely, but the age of the account is surprising. Requesting CU to confirm. T. Canens (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly Red X Unrelated. Different UAs, different OSs, thousands of kilometers apart, and neither appear to be using proxies. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
26 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by ZScarpia [edit]

109.67.38.10 (talk) appeared and started commenting uninvited at the Israel and the apartheid analogy Mediation Cabal case on 22 June. Comments made include one on user anonymity, a particular interest of Drork's, as was the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. PhilKnight has asked 109.67.38.10 whether he or she has "edited Wikipedia previously using a different IP address or maybe a logged in account." 109.67.38.10 replied but did not answer the question. As with other IP addresses suspected of having been used as socks by Drork, the 109.67.38.10 one is registered to the Israeli service provider Bezeq International.     ←   ZScarpia   01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Blocked 72 hours. Elockid (Talk) 02:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


26 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

IP in the same ISP as past Drork socks with the same focus on removing the word "occupied" from articles on the Israeli-occupied territories. Also has the same characteristic of being unable to makes his argument without resorting to claims of censorship and insulting those he disagrees with. The IP has made similar edits as Drork on the Golan article. Also there are similar edit summaries between the editors: IP: I'm afraid I have to insist. I did explain all there is to explain on the talk page. Reverting is illegitimate, IP: Several editors saw the recent edits and approved, I'm afraid Unomi does not have the final word. Also see talk page. Drork: I have to insist on that. This is not Harlan's private page. Drork: I'm sorry, but I have to insist. I contest harlan's edits, and he will have to do better in order to explain them, or ask for arbitration. The IP has also made an edit similar to Drork on the State of Palestine here with the talk comment here. Drork had previously been attempting to remove sourced content on Palestine being a successor state to the British Mandate. I am unsure if a CU is necessary here but I think it would be better to be able to compare technical data besides just the IP addresses. nableezy - 16:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

I have no doubt that this is Drork, the IP continues the exact same disputes at several articles, IPs first edits at Wikipedia show clearly an experienced Wikipedia user, I also have personal information linking Drork to this IP that I can send through mail if the reviewing admin requests it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence and previous patterns clearly indicate that this is Drork; no CU necessary. That being said, User:KnownAs-79-181-9-231 indefinitely blocked and tagged; the autoblock should nab the actual IP. –MuZemike 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness [edit]

Two days ago, Drorks socks were banned [53]

He had added sources claiming they support his pov that Golan is not Syria:[54]

Two days later this new IP shows up which relocates to the exact same area of Drorks previous IP and uses the same internet provider, and he is also adding sources claiming they support his pov that Golan is not Syria:[55] Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


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

 Clerk note: The relevant IP range involved here is 79.176.0.0/13; that's way too big a range to technically and socially block, let alone run a CheckUser through. Unless named accounts pop up, I would decline this due to the huge amount of IPs to fish though. As I said before on my talk page, as far as IP abuse is concerned, I'm afraid semi-protection of the talk pages would be the only other feasible option, but even that's not recommended unless they're really going crazy on said talk pages. That being said, this is clear that the above IP is Drork, but I feel like I'm stating the obvious for bureaucracy's sake. –MuZemike 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty pointless blocking that IP since he can easily switch IPs. As MuZemike has stated, semi-protection is our best option here. Elockid (Talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Wgfinley [edit]

More edit warring at Golan Heights [56]. Recent revert comments by 79.179.37.18[57] [58] appear consistent with Drork and are from the same ISP as the August Drork IP. WGFinley (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

The behaviour evidence in this SPI show clearly that the 79.181.9.231 IP is Drork.

Now compare both these two "new" IPs, 79.180.18.59 and 79.179.37.18 with Drorks IP 79.181.9.231. They both go back to the same location as Drork, they both have the same Internet Service provider as Drork, and they both push the same pov at the Golan Heights article as Drork. Compare this edit from Drorks previous sock: [59] with these new IPs:[60][61] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk declined We already know Drork's IP ranges. The edits also follow the same patterns as the previous SPI reports. Elockid (Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I've protected West Bank, another one of Drork's recent targets. See my talk page. Note, rangeblock is not feasible here. Elockid (Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Nableezy [edit]

This account was created yesterday. In their very first edits the "new" user created a new article with properly formatted references and employing syntax not often understood by actual new editors (here). Since that time, the user has focused on the same topic as past Drork socks, namely removing that the Golan is occupied by Israel and that Israeli localities in the Golan are "Israeli settlements". Compare edits by past Drork socks to the Golan article (such as this) to nearly all the edits made by this account. Those edits are almost entirely based on removing the word "occupied" and removing the words "Israeli settlement" from articles on settlements in the Golan. Drork has in the past been obsessed with the same issue.

The user also uses similar language as Drork, claiming that by asking if he has used a prior account that I am "harrassing him". This is similar to the responses by another Drork sock when he was asked the same question (see here).

Additionally, Drork was one of the few users that had more than basic knowledge of both Hebrew and Arabic. On the page Golan Heights (Israeli sub-district) this user added the Arabic "قضاء هضبة الجولان‎" and the transliteration. Google does not show any other pages that have this Arabic script, suggesting that the user who placed it there did not simply find it somewhere but rather had the necessary understanding of Arabic to add it. Nableezy 14:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Obviously a sock of drork, pushes the exact same pov about the Golan Heights, obviously not a new user as he created this article immediately after registration: [62], drorks previous sock IPs goes back to the same location as Kàkhvelokákh says he lives in, as can bee seen here: [63] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk declined Based on previous requests, the IP range is too large for CU to check. Behaviour-wise, it's pretty clear that this is a sock (particularly when the sock knows the functions of WP:AN/I when the account is only 2 days old). Please proceed to block the account for socking. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I executed the block, this user has objected via email. Any action on articles related to this currently blocked user should be held until the issue can be reviewed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both accounts have been blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Drork (indeffed) has a history of coming pov pushing in relation to the Golan heights: [64], [65], [66], [67].

This new IP has shown up and continues to pov push within the same subject: changes the map so that Golan is shown as part of Israel: [68], at another article: removes: "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" etc, [69]

I also have other evidence linking this IP to Drork that I can send through mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:08, 27 March 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 Checkuser will not connect an IP to an account. That said, I've blocked the IP for two weeks for evasion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I have private information that I can send to admin through mail that links Drork to these IPs.

Some of the behavioral evidence is these IPs pushing a strong non neutral pov in relation to Golan Heights articles:Removing "Israeli settlement", calling the area "Israeli side" [70][71]

Calling a place in the area "Israels Golan heights" [72][73]

This follows the behavior of Drorks previous socks pushing a strong non neutral pov with socks about the Golan Heights: At commons: [74][75], At Wikipedia: [76][77][78]

IP using China as argument about Golan Heights issues: "If we go by UN resolution, than Taipei is a city in the P.R. of China occupied by Chang Kai Shek's forces."

Same thing as Drork one year ago: "The official position of most governments and international organization is that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. Are we going to say in the lead of the article about ROC "Taiwan is a rebellious province of the PRC"?"

I can further show a connection through mail --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I believe the person who calls himself Supreme Deliciousness is trying to spy on me and hack some of my email accounts. I don't know why he does it, and I don't really understand his complaints here, but since he admits that he has private information about me which he holds in violation of any law, I must demand that you send me any of this information immediately so I could file a complaint at my Internet Service Provider and at the local police. I don't know what the procedures here exactly, but it seems to me, that "Supreme Deliciousness" should be checked whether he also hacked accounts related to the person he calls "DrorK", or any other person. I also advise you to inform "DrorK" about this criminal activity. 79.179.96.241 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Yes, it's him. No, we can't rangeblock without blocking the whole Bezeq. Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork/Archive&oldid=1142567593"