Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Babasalichai


Babasalichai

Babasalichai (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15 December 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Please see the discussion page for Rabbi Pinto. The aforementioned user -- and his various IP addresses -- have been vandalizing and posting libelous material on the page. Other editors have noted this, as well. Also see the SockMaster's talk page, in which user EdJohnston points to Babasalichai's sockpuppettry. The user is not even attempting to mask his actions anymore, as he typically forgets that he's commenting from different IP accounts/user accounts when discussing edits (for instance, I might address "68.173.122.113" and "65.112.21.194" or "Babasalichai" will respond). Furthermore, these accounts are adding or removing things that have been agreed upon by the larger editing community. Essentially, this is one biased editor working maliciously and he's using multiple accounts to carry out his disagreeable revisions (e.g., the accounts post the same edits, etc.). See this for more info. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Just a quick comment -- the reason Rabbi Pinto's page is semi-protected right now is because of Babasalichai's edit warring. Prior to Thanksgiving, a similar semi-protective plate was placed on the page due to the action's of his other account (68.173.122.113, whether sock or meatpuppet, I'm not 100% sure). The users make the exact same edits. Seems highly questionable.Beobjectiveplease (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

I'm sorry, but checkuser will not link accounts with IPs. TNXMan 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Clerk note: Babasalichai's talk page says they're from NYC, and 68.173.122.113 geolocates to NYC, so the connection there is pretty high. The 65 IP, by comparison, locates to Massachusetts, so that could be meatpuppeting. The article in question is currently protected for a month and neither of the IPs has edited in the past five days, so I think this can be closed for now. In general I would say that if the IPs are used to edit war, they should be considered the same as the master per WP:DUCK, but that's just me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

These two accounts are the same person and they'r editing the same pages, posing as different people. See their user pages and the Ronn Torossian entry. They're attempting to pass as family members, which could just be meatpuppetry if sockpuppetry doesn't apply. They also seem to be intimidating users with the accounts (see Shotgunsonthewhip, for example). Leaftwisted (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Yes we use the same computer & are family members. Is that not permitted ? I am a longtime user and a family member just started. Is that not allowed ? We disclosed it ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something shady is here the person who complained was uncovered as a abuser and now has been re-added without reasoning. Why ? Babasalichai (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
17 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Beobjectiveplease (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I found myself at this SPI because I was looking at the contributions of User:Babasalichai. My reason for looking at the contributions of Babasalichai was that user appeared today at Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (some Jewish Rabbi) eagerly encouraging that details of some financial scandal be included in the article - with a certain style of writing (look carefully at the way he writes, including in that diff; a certain rhetorical style and a certain typographical style should stand out);

I had found myself at Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto because it was mentioned in an unblock request of User:Jonathangluck, who was blocked following edit warring (and repeatedly infringing copyright) to include details of another financial scandal in Shmuley Boteach (another Jewish Rabbi). Jonathangluck had also edited to include the financial scandal details in the Pinto article - before he was blocked, that is.

Jonathangluck's unblock requests (and lots of his other comments on talk pages) share the same certain rhetorical style and the same certain typographical oddity that I noted above - just one example here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Babasalichai's most recent edits (as I write this) were to edit a section that also mentions Boteach in a completely different article.
Finally, if these do turn out to be related, I'd like if possible for the sanctions taken, to take into account the editing behaviour of these users, for example (I haven't looked in depth) things like this creation of the user page for a new user telling them that Wikipedia "doesn't exist for you to edit pages", and "Do you read English ?" included twice in edit summaries here and here. I'm sure there's lots more similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also please take into account this diff where Jonathangluck is advised to use only one account and agrees that he will do so, on 9th March 2011. I see that User:Jonathanglick13 userpage says "(family member of babasalichai)". Possibly it's his WP:LITTLEBROTHER. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathangluck and babasalichai are family members and share computers. That has been disclosed already and understood that was ok as long as disclosed. Whats wrong with that ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they both write the same way and they are both desperately eager to include details of financial scandals in articles about American Rabbis? And the userpage User:Babasalichai currently does not mention anything about the family connection? And the userpage User:Jonathangluck doesn't either? I also think it's a bit fishy that when Jonathangluck is advised about only using one account in the diff mentioned above, and says he will, he doesn't say anything about the family connection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As well as both accounts having edited Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto and Shmuley Boteach, they've also both edited Noam Lanir. Pinto and Boteach are American Rabbis, but Lanir is an Israeli businessman. That's stretching "we're family members who just happen to share interests" way too far for credulity. I'd also like to note that Babasalichai has two previous blocks (and Jonathangluck one current one), in one of which the blocking admin identifies 65.112.21.194 as being Babasalichai - this was more than three months ago so it looks like the IP may be fairly stable, maybe worth a longish block for the IP itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family members share interests, right ? Family relations were disclosed previously and will now be disclosed again... but user was very clear when asked about it. When Jonathangluck was asked about using 1 account he has to the best of my knowledge ? Babasalichai (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for those reviewing and investigating Demiurge1000 is biased clearly - He states edit warring and other things - There was no edit warring a simple review will show ? Family members were disclosed and stuck to. Nothing was broken. Babasalichai (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on that a little. In Talk:Yoshiyahu_Yosef_Pinto#Financial scandal there is a discussion about whether certain material is included in the article. User:Jonathangluck starts the discussion, later Jonathangluck is blocked, then User:Babasalichai chimes in agreeing with Jonathangluck. The other people in the discussion are not notified that these two users are family members, and if the other people in the discussion went to the userpages of Jonathangluck and Babasalichai, they would not find any mention of the family connection there at the time.
As regards edit warring, yes the 24 hours block was for edit warring copyright infringements into an article. Are you claiming that you were not doing that deliberately? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely inaccurate. Babasalichai (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and regarding the copywright infringements I'd urge whoever is reviewing to review it - this user complaining had someone else do the block without reviewing the actual supposed infringements. Babasalichai (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is more complicated and more diabolical than it initially appears. My curiosity was piqued by the recent editing of JonathanGluck, and I did a little investigation. It is quite easy to identify his edits on talk pages because of his idiosyncratic syntax.

Based on this syntactic analysis, I discovered that several editors had this peculiar style, including Babasalichai, Jonathanglick13, and the anonymous users 68.173.122.113, 12.103.203.218, and 207.237.137.37. However, I also saw comments on talk pages by some of these same users that appeared to be in much more cogent English, suggesting to me that more than one person was using the usernames.

I then started looking at the articles which these users had worked on. They include

I have only begun to dig. What is significant about these articles is that they are all about people associated in one way or another with PR executive Ronn Torossian. Rick Sanchez is a client of Torossian's, and these editors have inserted a number of flattering comments into his biography. Jeffrey Goldberg is a writer who wrote an expose of Torossian's PR techniques, and the comments added by 68.173.122.113 are all defamatory and attempt to show Goldberg as incompetant and dishonest.

According to PR industry blogs and magazines, Torossian and his PR firm 5WPR specialize in sock-puppetry as a technique for promoting his clients and himself. Do a websearch for "RonnTorossian sock puppet" to see the reports.

I think a lot more research needs to be done. It doesn't look pretty. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very worrying. Might be something that needs to be handled separately from here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One again untruths - 1 incident unrelated to Torossian personally 3 years ago for 1 of largest PR firms in US. I'd venture the statements you made above shouldnt be made here and would urge them to be removed "specializing in sock puppets". Babasalichai (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "flattering comments" in Sanchezs' bio are you referring to ? Where did Goldberg write an expose -- Thats a blatant lie ? Babasalichai (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flattering comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Sanchez&action=historysubmit&diff=419283397&oldid=418038465.
Jeffrey Goldberg article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2008/10/the-jewish-extremists-behind-quot-obsession-quot/9006/
Sorry for not including these links in my original post. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also not against Wiki policy to attempt to out users ? Admin assistance pls. Babasalichai (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet investigation is not WP:OUTING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS OUTING, RIGHT ? HELP PLS... "I have only begun to dig. What is significant about these articles is that they are all about people associated in one way or another with PR executive Ronn Torossian. Rick Sanchez is a client of Torossian's, and these editors have inserted a number of flattering comments into his biography. Jeffrey Goldberg is a writer who wrote an expose of Torossian's PR techniques, and the comments added by 68.173.122.113 are all defamatory and attempt to show Goldberg as incompetant and dishonest. According to PR industry blogs and magazines, Torossian and his PR firm 5WPR specialize in sock-puppetry as a technique for promoting his clients and himself. Do a websearch for "RonnTorossian sock puppet" to see the reports." Babasalichai (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It looks to me like the PR firm has already "outed" itself, if there's that amount of info available on Google. Mentioning them here, as part of a SPI, doesn't qualify as WP:OUTING since they're already "out". All that Ravpapa is doing is repeating publicly-available reports. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the section below (where he shouldn't be commenting...) Babasalichai says "Never denied relationship and never debated same article ever". This is blatantly untrue. [1] [2] That's Jonathangluck and Babasalichai debating the same disputed content, in the same section of the talk page of the same article, on the same day. Couldn't get more blatant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

No comment on the IP, but Babasalichai (talk · contribs), Jonathangluck (talk · contribs), and Jonathanglick13 (talk · contribs) are technically indistinguishable. TNXMan 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanglick13 disclosed family member status with babasalichai. Jonathangluck inherited jonathangluck13 which is no longer active. Babasalichai (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find same IP's but 13 disclosed family status, and so did jonathangluck say @top of talk page he's same as glick13 which isnt active. Babasalichai (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff Jonathangluck states he has not edited the Rabbi Pinto article "for weeks", but the fact is that Jonathangluck has only four edits to this article—the two edits on March 17 and two previous edits that date from June 19, 2010. This is not a matter of "weeks" but nine months. It is Babasalichai that has not edited Rabbi Pinto for weeks. I find the behavioural evidence to be very strong as well. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that when Jonathangluck was asked if he was the same person as Jonathatglick13] he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathangluck&diff=418037707&oldid=418037631 confirmed it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperately can someone assist pls with the attempted outing and threats ? Jonathangluck and Jonathanglick13 are same person thats not disputed. What is disputed is babasalichai is different person. (and me, babasali hasnt edited Pinto for 8 days or something thats not weeks ?).... Babasalichai (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who has come across User:Jonathangluck and the Shmuley Boteach case, I don't see any benefit in pressing for any sanction in the charge of sockpuppetry. Afterall, Jonathanglick13 and Jonathangluck self-identified as the same person, and Jonathanglick13 self-identified as a family member of User:Babasalichai, both before this incident occurred. It's uncertain to us whether Jonathangluck/Jonathanglick13 and Babasalichai are actually the same person or just two related people, however I can't see any benefit in carrying on with a sockpuppetry charge rather than simply sanctioning the two of them separately under the charge of meatpuppetry. --Deryck C. 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but Jonathangluck is blocked and appears to be editing through that block from another account. Are you going to allow WP:LITTLEBROTHER to be used successfully to do this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand the rationale of Little Brother completely, which is why I made my point above: I don't think it matters whether it's a real little brother or a WP:LITTLEBROTHER, because I think the meatpuppet sanctions are adequate in this case. However, if there is clear evidence that they're actually the same person, which is the direction this discussion seems to be heading, then do press on with the sockpuppet sanctions. (That Jonathangluck hasn't posted any responses on his user talk since he was blocked is now convincing me that they're the same person.) --Deryck C. 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, there are several prominent Wikipedians that share a house and computer--even some of whom are admins. As I recall, isn't it the case that those pairs usually 1) fully declare their relationship, and 2) agree not to edit the same articles? In other words, even if we could confidently confirm that Babasalachai and Jonathangluck are different people living in the same house, using the same computer, don't we need to ensure that they don't edit the same areas? Otherwise, anyone with family members could create and account for each member, OTRS to prove they exist, then use the accounts together to form blocks of support on articles. Maybe this needs to be raised at ANI instead of here, but I think it's clear that we can't have both of them editing the same topics, the same articles, with the same POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should make them promise to stop using identical grammatical oddities and identical spelling errors as well? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe relationship was disclosed, and will be in future again. And could agree not to edit same documents ? Thats reasonable.... Never denied relationship and never debated same article ever.... Babasalichai (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, your last statement is flat out false. Jonathangluck added this and this to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. That information was removed by Diannaa with the request that we discuss it on the talk page (which we are currently doing). About 9 hours later you (Babasalichai) added similar (although not identical) information to the same article, and then continued to discuss it on the talk page. So it is factually wrong to state that you "never debated same article ever". You're really not helping your case here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to today would be accurate - yes was reading article together and yes this AM happened... and wont happen again. But folks disclosure was there and is there and am not hiding it. Its definitely not sockpuppet of that there is no question. Babasalichai (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gluck is travelling today is that ok ? Folks this isnt sockpuppet there hasnt been any edit disputes on this issue, nor has there been non disclosure. Nothing malicious. Babasalichai (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, attempt to out wiki user. Pls assist in removal. Babasalichai (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everyone This area is for "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" only. Please stop talking here and do so above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as blocking has taken place, no action required for alleged outing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2011 (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 "~~~~"

Sorry, this SPI is a bit upside down. The outcome of the previous SPI for User:Babasalichai was that User:Jonathangluck was considered the master and blocked for 48 hours, IP 65.112.21.194 was also blocked for 48 hours, and User:Babasalichai and User:Jonathanglick13 were considered the sockpuppets and thus blocked indef. But I'm filing this with Babasalichai as the master (and Jonathangluck as a sock) just to keep everything in one place. For any sanctions taken, I suggest keeping Jonathangluck as the master (and thus extending block as appropriate) and all the others as socks (and thus indef blocks).

User:Billybruns turned up uninvited at User talk:Ravpapa to accuse [3] Ravpapa of "Attempt to out user". With the exception of no longer upsetting WP:Wikipe-tan by infringing WP:NOTWIKI, this is exactly the same phrasing as now-indef-blocked User:Babasalichai used previously. The comments about "vandalised" and "defiled" appear to relate to Ravpapa's recent edits to 5W Public Relations.

User:Emetemet13 turned up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and User talk:Pinkadelica [4] to ask for help with the article 5W Public Relations. Again the edits are described as "vandalism". Emetermet13 also turned up at User talk:Reaper Eternal to make some rather odd edits asking basically the same thing. Note some of the phrasing of the requests is identical to previous edits made by Babasalichai.

Jonathangluck is listed due to it being the nominal master account, as discussed above - no separate evidence required since Jonathangluck and Babasalichai are already linked.

And finally the IP, view its contributions here, previously blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry in a preceding Babasalichai case, is today posting [5] on Talk:5W Public Relations and uses the phrase "has been discussed ad nauseam" which is, word-for-word, the same phrase as used by Billybruns in the comment to Ravpapa in the diff above.

This collection of accounts and the IP (and possibly other IPs) have made various other posts in the last 48 hours that link them all together and to the whole 5W Public Relations nonsense and various attacks on Jewish religious figures, but hopefully the above is enough to justify a checkuser. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 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.

Could we please get the case re-named to show Jonathangluck as the sock master? That was the oldest account. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

No comment on the IP, but all of the named accounts are   Confirmed matches. TNXMan 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathangluck is now blocked 1 month for socking. –MuZemike 07:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Here he is again, editing 5W Public Relations. Comments on his talk page, as well as editing patterns, display the typical idiosyncracies that make him easy to identify. Ravpapa (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added an IP continuing tendentious edits on 5W Public Relations, Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto and other targets of this puppeteer. IP was blocked last week for 48 hours for sockpuppetry.RolandR (talk) 22:22, 29 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

It appears TheNYCdan (talk · contribs) is technically   Unrelated. TNXMan 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

All four of these acounts have been created in the last day or two and are highly interested in the articles on Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations and little else. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to edit-war on Ronn Torossian, with related forum-shopping and harassment of User:Ravpapa RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added TLVEWR here also, as he appears to also be an SPA returning to this article after a very suspicious 2 1/2 year absence. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is intriguing, TLVEWR is a suspected sockpuppet (marked by Checkuser as "possible") of blocked serial puppeteer Emetman, who has a long history of edit-warring on Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations. We may be looking at a much bigger and more persistent sock farm than we previously thought. I request that CU tries to establish if these are indeed linked. RolandR (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emetman had some of the same distinctive "tells" seen in Babasalichai, as seen in this edit summary, this edit summary, this example of writing style. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an ip, who from their edits on Talk:Ronn Torossian and Talk:5W Public Relations is clearly another sock of this puppeteer. RolandR (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Bearing in mind the check user comments below, as well as in the case of Emetman, I suggest thst if these are not provably sockpuppets, they are definitely meatpuppets, coordinating offline in order to promote the interests of the PR company involved -- likely their employer. RolandR (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:An#Community ban proposal for Babasalichai. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the editing history of Babasalichai and Greenbay1313, and I have little doubt they are the same person. Apart from editing in the same areas and expressing the same concerns, they make similar use of language and similar writing style. I have not studied the others in the same amount of detail, but the similarity of editing clearly indicates that they are all either sock- or meat-puppets, without a shadow of a doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone taken a look at the contributions of User:Judae1 not currently suspected as related, he openly outs himself as a senior executive of this organisation and has edited (and wrote) the articles related to the investigation. If unrelated he may have answers in relation to claims of meatpuppetry? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is indeed suspected to be related. He has already been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Emetman Indeed, the blocking admin, User:Tiptoety, suggested that this was the overall puppet master. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:greenbay1313's recent behavior on my talk page and on Talk:Ronn Torossian quacks pretty loudly to me, as being a nearly in ways that I explained in both places. Note, also that in WP:AN, greenbay1313 just implied pretty clearly that even if banned (assuming that they're the same person), they'll be using the local internet cafes to ensure continued ability to edit. I hope the firm covers the cost of computer rentals...Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got that imprssion too. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason greenbay1313 isn't being DUCK blocked? Is everyone here too involved, and so we need to raise this somewhere else? Or does someone actually think the evidence isn't clear enough? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the CU result, below, it's possible that even if they're not all the same person they are all employees of Torossian. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak has rightly added the latest sock account to the list of users, but in this case the extra sock is already blocked by Diannaa per WP:DUCK and WP:GIANTDUCK so yes this case is all good to archive (and already previously marked as closed). Thank you to everyone for the great teamwork in dealing with all this nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
All are   Possible, but there is no clear connection other than geographical proximity. This may well be off-wiki coordination, as well. Dominic·t 06:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same behavioural evidence as usual: the same spelling errors and punctuation errors. The same editing interests, including NYC rabbis and their organisations. Other behaviours that I do not wish to reveal on-wiki as keeping some "tells" secret helps us spot the socks. I don't know that a check-user would reveal anything as his usual underlying IPs are likely already blocked. Thanks. Diannaa (Talk) 18:12, 17 April 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. Both IPs this account was using have been blocked already. TNXMan 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Behavioural evidence: The IP and the named account are editing Avi Weiss, one of the targets of the banned user Babasalichai. The IP and the named user edited minutes apart, and knew how to add well-formed citations with templates, something most new users will not know how to do. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 00:43, 29 April 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


04 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Williamchoi exhibits a number of stylistic "tells" that were also used by Babasalichai and his other sockpuppets. (If necessary, I can elaborate by email, but would rather not say publicly what the tells are.) Williamchoi is also seeking to promote a book by Ronn Torossian with this edit; one of the activities of Babasalichai and his other sockpuppets was to make positive edits about Torossian and Torossian's PR firm. It may be worth mentioning that the advertising for the book describes it as teaching readers how to "ensure the first thing people see about your business or brand during an Internet search is exactly what you want them to see". (Note: User:Babasalichai has been banned from Wikipedia by community concensus.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 4 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
16 August 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Loverhan's first and only edit so far was this one in which he says that he told us something before - which implies he had another account. The edit is about wanting to include some negative material about Rabbi Pinto from press reports. Community banned user Babasalichai also regularly wanted to include negative material about Rabbi Pinto (and at least one other Rabbi) from press reports. Loverhan's grammar and writing style doesn't obviously match Babasalichai's observed writing style, but the grammar usage seems on an equivalent level --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes the writing style does match, I just had to look a bit closer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 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
21 June 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has been editing the article Ronn Torossian, the owner of the public relations firm that was attempting to edit Wikipedia in the past, particularly the article on Rabbi Pinto. Babasalichai's tells are there, including the distinctive phraseology and punctuation. I have been editing the article and am not comfortable blocking the IP. I will also be requesting page protection. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not an accusation against a living person ? Mr. Torossian ? Have you any proof of your claim ? I had understood accusations against a living person weren't permitted?67.243.55.103 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 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
13 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has been repeatedly been blocked as being used by banned user Babasalichai. The IP is now editing the Rabbi Pinto article (his primary target) and its talk page, and behaviorally it looks like the same person to me. This diff in particular uses his typical wording and phraseology. I cannot block as I have been heavily involved in maintaining the article. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the privacy of the the individuals involved, so have gone ahead and blocked the IP for six months. Diff of Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto -- Dianna (talk) 14:31, 18 October 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
13 January 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


My opinion is that this is another sock of Babasalichai. My rationale and behavioural evidence for this was sent to Amalthea by email a week or so ago. Dianna (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. I was involved in the original ban discussion, and worked with socks of B. previously. Behavioural evidence is there, and available by email on request. The Interior (Talk) 00:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the sockpuppets listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tellyuer1/Archive should be combined with the file on Babasalichai. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 14 January 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 note: I'm assuming that means that evidence is to be left off per BEANS and will notify Amalthea of this case.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was kinda hoping that proofing the connection would be rendered moot during the one-week block; Blocking purely based on confident behavioral evidence is not the most healthy thing for a community, it's always a bit subjective whether it's conclusive enough, so if there is a choice I'd rather have such sock blocks backed by technical evidence. But it can't be helped here.
    Richierichriche, a certain sock of Tellyuer1, was already blocked as a Babasalichai sock based on behavior. Evidence I was sent by Diannaa and Demiurge1000 makes a very strong case, and throwing in some   magic pixie dust I can say it appears possible that technical evidence matches prior sock user:Tampatwins.
    Amalthea 13:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like all the dots are connected enough to close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


See below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I'm too involved with the content of the article on Ronn Torossian to work in an administrative capacity on it, or on Torossian and his socks. However, quick Google searches showed that Albertoein526 edited an article on a client of 5WPR, Torossian's PR company. Special:Contributions/Richie1921 has an interesting history of accusing various competitors of Torossian's company of being anti-Israel, say here, citing a disputed opinion piece by Ronn Torossian as a source. That account also edited the New Israel Fund article at a time that coincided with Torossian's public criticism of that organization. TLVEWR claimed not to have any current dealings with Torossian. Given this amount of deceptive and disruptive editing, I wonder whether we shouldn't treat Torossian's company 5WPR the way we do Wiki-PR. Huon (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, while we're on the topic. the IP user who identifies himself as the real Ronn Torossian and who has been posting vociferously at the article and now at ANI, is, by all indications (specifically, the stylistic idiosyncrasies that characterize the sock), another avatar of the same Babasalichai. I don't think that the fact that the sock has now adopted the name of the subject of the article should in any way grant him immunity from the community ban. His posts should be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that these accounts are confirmed to be each other but what is the connection to Babasalichai? Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Babasalichai was actually not the first sockpuppet from the farm, but it was Babasalichai who first made clear the extent of the project. You can see more at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emetman. If you are new to this particular saga, you might also be interested in reading the other sockpuppet story associated with Ronn Torossian at Agriprocessors#Public_relations. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the details, Ravpapa, I'll check out those pages. But I still don't see how these accounts are associated with Babasalichai unless there is behavioral evidence that is not listed here. Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I made the connection through RonnToro's block log. Diannaa, do you have any comments to add here? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The connection that Ronntoro = Babasalichai was made through behavioural evidence such as peculiarities in punctuation and grammar, such as:
  • putting a question mark at the end of sentences that are not questions
  • putting periods at the end of sentences that are questions
  • omitting pronouns. It's possible that multiple people have had access to some of the accounts, based on the different "voices" that are discernible. I don't recall Babasalichai posting in all caps, for example. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Babasalichai/Archive&oldid=1086090926"