Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency

His excellency (4th)

• His excellency (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ibn Shah (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MomoShomo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (already has been blocked as a suspected sock, but requesting checkuser to check if this is a confirmed sock)

• Code letter: B (link for arbitration case)

Ibn Shah shows the same behavior as MomoShomo who was blocked as a possible sock of H.E., in taking out a certain person from this list relating to religious beliefs. Ibn Shah ([1]) and MomoShomo ([2],[3], [4]) both argue that this person on the lists is "not notable because he doesnt have his own article". Ibn Shah is also interested in Islamophobia ([5],[6],[7]) as was His Excellency ([8],[9],[10]). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Please include a link to the closed arbitration case per the instructions. Cbrown1023 talk 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency Cbrown1023 talk 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, added the link above as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Ibn Shah == MomoShomo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not commented on if I have any relation to His Excellency. Ibn Shah 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else gets to do the edit analyses; I'm just reporting on the IP usage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that but you have not said what the IP usage of His Excellency shows in relation to me. Ibn Shah 18:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

His Excellency is stale; no comment regarding his IP usage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits looks like H.E. also. - Merzbow 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

H.E has a distinct style of writing and expression, which i don't see in Ibn Shah's contributions. as for removing Ali Sina from a list (rightly so, he doesn't have his own article and seems to be non-notable), i believe this is what numerous users have done, including myself. ITAQALLAH 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Ibn Shah sounds very similar to H.E. in diction and grammar and in the way he continually revises his talk edits, except with the incivility toned down a bunch. But the punch line is that we know he's MomoShomo, who was significantly more incivil, marking good-faith edits as rvv exactly like H.E. did, etc. - Merzbow 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only edit that I did that in was here and even then I had copied the edit summary from the previous editor. Ibn Shah 00:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Arrow740 (a long-term editor and no vandal) incorrectly reverted your edit with "rvv" didn't give you license to revert back with the same. - Merzbow 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot ask me to extend respect to those who cannot return it. But anyway, according to your edit summary logic, Arrow is also the same person as His Excellency. Ibn Shah 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your grasp of logic is stunning. Anyways, I'm not the one you need to convince, it's Tom Harrison, who was MomoShomo's blocking admin. Good luck. - Merzbow 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah, if you are User:MomoShomo, but not User:His excellency, why didn't you say anything when MomoShomo was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of His excellency?Proabivouac 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried to post on the talk page of the admin who blocked me but I couldn't edit his page, or any page for that matter. I also wasn't aware of any procedure like checkuser that could clear my name. I ask that the checkuser people compare my IP's with the confirmed sockpuppets below, i.e. User:Habibz, USer:Gridges, and User:Yorkuz so we can move on. Ibn Shah 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah is Unrelated to Habibz, Gridges, or Yorkuz. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on editing style, Ibn Shah, MomoShomo, and His excellency are the same. Compare this confirmed sockpuppet of His excellency [11] with these by MomoShomo[12] and Ibn Shah.[13] Also see [14]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also struck by the similarities in diffs from Ibn Shah (the one you referenced and another from this page) and one from an alleged His excellency sockpuppet from last year, User:Shams2006:

"There are other people out there that may have the same opinion…"Seasoned Editor"? I've been reading discussions here for two months. Understanding how this place operates is really not that hard."[15]

"If this person and I feel the same way on the same issues we are the same person?...I dont know what is so complicated about editing that you make a big deal that I edit like an experienced user. It just takes a few minutes to learn how to edit."[16]

"But anyway, according to your edit summary logic, Arrow is also the same person as His Excellency."[17]

"Using this method if you search enough you can "prove" I am many other people too. Your user page says you eat cheese. I eat cheese too! That must make me Merzbow too then."[18]

In a precisely analogous situation, the arguments are precisely the same. Whatever the (self-requested) CU results, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a single individual is behind these posts.

Another conspicuous fact: at no point (yet) has Ibn Shah actually denied being His excellency, but only stated there was no evidence, and now very curiously asked after CU results to see where he stands. Earlier, he denied any knowledge of the situation of which he can only have been acutely aware,[19] as his sockpuppet User:MomoShomo (why this sock was opened to begin with is yet another question) had already been indef blocked as a sock of His excellency. His explanation above that he was not able to respond to this allegation ignores that 1) MomoShomo would still have been able to respond on MomoShomo's own talk page and 2) user had already been posting as User:Ibn Shah, which was never blocked. And how did he find this page, of which he was supposedly unaware?Proabivouac 09:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, when people are faced with the same accusations, they are likely to make the same counterarguments. How was I supposed to know that I was still able to respond on my talk page? Did anyone inform me? No. How did I find this page? I looked at Matt57's contributions. The checkuser person has said that I have no relation to the previous sockpuppets and His Excellency has seemed to appear in this discussion two times[20] [21], so anyone can compare my IP with these accounts as well. Now please stop bothering me with frivolous accusations. I did not join Wikipedia to waste my time with such things. Ibn Shah 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency}} to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

His excellency (3rd)

• His excellency (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Abureem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: B

Admins - Forgive me, I didn't know if I could (or should) do the Archive template properly... This user "His excellency" just went through a checkuser. It appears another sock has surfaced. Evidence is presented per the conversation here [22] (I will copy and paste below):

I'm just looking for your opinion here. There's a new user named Abureem who has a very confrontational style [23], is interested in defending Wahhabism[24] just like His excellency[25] (also uses the word "pejorative" like H.E.). Abureem referred to people as bigots and islamophobes in a similar manner to H.E. and also happily broke 3RR just as the H.E. puppets do. What do you think? Should I bring another checkuser request? or just keep an eye on this one? --ProtectWomen 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's him. Fire up the CheckUser. - Merzbow 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These appear to me as well to be the same user.Proabivouac 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: archived the previous case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 Inconclusive. Looks unrelated but editing patterns are still quite strong.Voice-of-All 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

• His excellency (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Habibz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gridges (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yorkuz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: B

Yet another sockpuppet from ArbCom and community-banned His_excellency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency, and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency). He has returned to his favorite punching bag, Criticism of Islam.

Lots of recent sockpuppet activity, including blocked MomoShomo who made a big stink on my userpage about my gender/orientation and its relationship to Islam. After being blocked as MomoShomo, he returned as Habibz to continue complaining about my userpage [26] (as if he spoke on behalf of all Muslims).

There is no question this is H.E. --ProtectWomen 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; one of H.E.'s favorite haunts was the "Criticism of the critics" area of Criticism of Islam, this sock seems to be an SPA focused exclusively on that area. The accusations of bigotry, etc. are all par for the course for our guy. - Merzbow 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Gridges (talk · contribs); created just after I blocked Habibz (talk · contribs) for the sole reason of complaining about the block. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Yorkuz (talk · contribs); created in order to revert a couple of Habibz edits on Criticism of Islam and then blank large sections just because he was mad about getting blocked on his last couple of sockpuppets. I've been looking at the contribs of His excellency (talk · contribs) and it appears to present a long history of disruption, incivility and use of puppets(including anonymous-IP) to avoid the indefinite ban.

 Confirmed. Voice-of-All 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

• His excellency (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Coldbud (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: B

Yet another sockpuppet from ArbCom and community-banned His_excellency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency, and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency). He has returned to his favorite punching bag, Criticism of Islam, and has also resumed complaining on Jimbo's talk page, both classic H.E. behaviors. On the topic of Criticism of Islam, compare these edits from H.E: [27] [28], with these from a recently banned sock of his: [29] [30] (this discussion spawned off the CoI talk page here), against these from Coldbud: [31], [32], and [33]. On the topic of Jimbo's talk page, compare this H.E. edit: [34] to this from Coldbud: [35]. I think the behavioral evidence is enough for a block even without CheckUser, but I'm assuming CheckUser can end this quickly given the data should be available per his many recent socks. - Merzbow 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.