McKhan

McKhan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

User appears to have logged out to continue their edit war with Baboon43 on the Al-Ahbash article Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got "suspicious" because that IP address was from Pakistan. A cursory look at your contributions (Darkness Shines (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · Shines.html RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) to the Wikipedia, thus far, reveals the fact that you are paranoid thus incapable of contributing to the Wikipedia objectively and with neutral point of view about anything Pakistani and Islamic. AmandaParker (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can perhaps two other people, Baboon43 and 71.21.3.206/the other SPRINT/Californian IPs, who have used similar edit summaries. I'm more inclined to believe then that 182.185.87.215 is not AmandaParker, but could be the Sprint/Californian IPs. Also note that McKhan (talk · contribs) was in dispute with Baboon43. Elockid (Talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going on today's edit war only. Maybe I am wrong, I know I do not appreciate being called paranoid. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

I am afraid you are wrong. That IP address is from Pakistan (See here) and I am based in the United States. I never logged-out. AmandaParker (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note I don't see much evidence the AmandaParker is the IP. Could you please provide more info? Actually, it looks like there's quite a bit of edit warring occurring at Al-Ahbash. I've protected the article for 3 days as a result. Elockid (Talk) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this then. Amanda, please avoid edit warring in the future, and avoid personal attacks. Amalthea 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

There is a discussion ongoing at Al-Ahbash concerning a reverted edit, and User:McKhan suddenly joins the conversation to support User:AmandaParker. I do not know if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but both of these editors are single purpose accounts that focus almost exclusively on this article; both editors use the talk page to support one another's comments without exception; both editors show WP:OWN behavior by stating that a consensus on the talk page is required before making any edits to the article; both editors tag team their reverts to avoid the appearance of edit warring and both resort to personal attacks when the discussion is not as they want it to be (I can't find a diff for User:AmandaParker, however the user's use of personal attacks was noted by the closing admin in the previous SPI) This edit suggests that User:AmandaParker perhaps logged out in order to use another account, I don't see too many other reasons why the editor would have logged out in the middle of making edits, they were logged in both before and after the IP edit. SudoGhost 07:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not the only editor to suspect a connection between the two accounts. After looking into it, the similarity between the two accounts appears to go back to 2006, concerning the same article. On 8 April 2006 McKhan was blocked for violating 3RR on Al-Ahbash. His next edit was to continue a revert war on the article, but instead of risk 3RR, AmandaParker comes along and makes her first edit, which is identical to McKhan's edit. - SudoGhost 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Forgive me, but I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking, but comparing the contribs of User:AmandaParker and the IP I believe shows what you're asking for, but if that's not what you're asking for, could you please clarify? Comparing the times of the IP's edit and AmandaParker's contribs show no editing within that short time frame. It seems to suggest that the editor logged out to switch accounts, and somehow got mixed up and submitted that comment while logged out, logged back in to correct it, and comment two more times before switching accounts. I can't think of any other reason to log out in the middle of a discussion. (Also, it seems the editor has opened a retaliatory SPI against me) - SudoGhost 10:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI the user opened appears to reveal another similarity between the two accounts; an odd placement of extremely frequent commas "Sudo, I, seriously, couldn't care less..." and "As soon as, I reverted some edits done by Baboon43, suddenly, SudoGhost joins..." (this is the first time the user referred to me as "SudoGhost", on the article's talk page both accounts referred to me as Sudo) - SudoGhost 10:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I realise that my wording was not very clear. Can you show that McKhan made an edit(s) between the time of this edit and AmandaParker's previous edit? Osarius Talk 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. McKhan did not make any edits in that window of time, but I believe that logging out and commenting as the IP may have been a mistake as the result of trying to switch between accounts, and logged back in and added the signature to correct this. Then to avoid outright suspicion made two more edits as AmandaParker before switching accounts (either that or wanted to reply to specific points that had been made in the interim addressed to that account). However, I don't think the IP slip up is the primary indicator by any means, I didn't even notice it until going through the contribs; I think the behavioral similarities and diffs are more prominent indicators. - SudoGhost 10:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course behavioural similarities are key to SPI, but subtle edits and mistakes such as this one you uncovered can be vital information. By the looks of it, both users have been trouble editors since 2005/6, but here's a thing: AmandaParker appears to have been mostly unused until the time of this discussion, where McKhan has been used throughout - a sign of account preferism. They have similar behavioural characteristics too. To me, it's likely, but we shall see what the closing admin thinks. Osarius Talk 11:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along with your evidence provided with your edit of 11:15 today, this SPI case seems confirmed. Osarius Talk 11:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked on my Talk Page to respond. So, here is my response: Wikipedia is a paradise and haven for Pedophiles, Perverts, Amateurs, Pseudo-Scholars, Agenda-pushers, Wanna-be-Academics, Egoistics, Control-freaks, Teen-agers and Bloggers .etc. Its "anybody-can-edit" approach is a tantamount to the prositution of facts, subjects and the realities on the ground. Wikipedia Guidelines and policies are just the tools to facilitate that prositution. Consequently, Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a child which was born dead from the day it was conceived by its founder. And this child will remain dead, no matter how much money, resources and exposure is poured by the companies like Google, Yahoo .etc on its coffin. Having said that I know a lot more about the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies than all of you combined on this page which is apparently is not good enough for Wikipedia as it only entertains people like Sudo who keep on prostituting the Wikipedia guidelines and policies to satisfy their egoistic tendencies and YET know nothing about the subjects they claim to "edit." That's what we call Wikipedia Cluster Fuck. McKhan (talk)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Osarius, I've removed the likely and confirmed templates you've used to avoid any confusion for people reviewing this case. TNXMan 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed the following are the same:
25 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

McKhan was previously blocked for using sockpuppets to edit war, one of his tactics was to use an IP. He has again the above an IP to continue an edit war on Abdullah al-Harari as he had already reached two reverts. I know the IP is McKhan as he used it to post a personal attack on my talk page.[3] I was going to ignore the attack, but he is obviously going back to his sock activity's. He managed to log in to remove a warning for this attack[4] so I doubt he "forgot to login" Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I believe ip 184.251.62.79 also belongs to Mckhan because he used similar words of personal attacks calling users "retards" [5] Baboon43 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 IP blocked regardless due to this edit [6]. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you should have blocked McKhan? As he is now still editing[7][8] after that attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was not clear, I blocked the IP soleley for the attack and without considering the socking issue. Your talk page was on my watchlist. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself. As such, I have blocked McKhan (talk · contribs) for a period of one month. Please note that this block is not based on CheckUser evidence. Tiptoety talk 16:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Mckhan reverted it me on "Ahbashism campaign" article claming that the source doesnt include info [9]. a few days later on a separate article "Deobandi" an ip user (proxy) comes along and makes its first and only edit by reverting me and claiming "the article doesnt say that"[10].mckhan has a history of sock puppetry Baboon43 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I do not think that IP is McKhan, and geolocation[11] does not say it is a proxy, though it is strange to see a dial up service still in use. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the ip should be blocked regardless of the outcome of the spi for falsely removing citation..i doubt its just a drive by user it looks more like a well established user trying to avoid detection. Baboon43 (talk)
Without any evidence that it is any specific user, that's hard to determine with just a single good-faith edit. It's possible they just didn't see the content in the book; things get overlooked. I don't think it's McKhan, and IPs shouldn't be blocked for a single edit that could be just a good-faith mistake. If they had continued to press the issue it'd be one thing, but I don't see any pressing need to block the IP. - SudoGhost 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where that IP (210.195.181.239) is from nor I have any connection in that country. Furthermore, I know nothing about Deobandi people nor I have any interest in them. It is suffice to say that IP is NOT me - not even remotely. Consequently, it is a frivolous SPI. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

This guy has been warned about socking on the Ahbash page [12] Continued ip logging on the page to avoid scrutiny. [13] Removal of content form of censorship , calls the organization a cult on several forums such as this [14]. The Ahbash talk page is spammed with this in the archives by Mckhan. All articles related to al ahbash cant be edited because he wipes out every addition since 2005. [15] [16] [17] User complaints [18] [19] [20] I believe it is a vendetta by the khan family based in ukraine as this user has admitted to being from that country [21] Khan and Ahbash are in a feud after the Ahbash took over their worship center in Ukraine [22] Samsparky (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More