Bokpasa

Bokpasa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Bokpasa has a long history of disruptive edits on Moroccan history-related pages (e.g. Amoravids, Marinids, Almohads, Battle of Tangiers, etc. Too numerous to mention - a check of his contribution list should reveal it.). On the basis of his original research, Bokpasa has endeavored ceaselessly to eliminate all reference to "Morocco" prior to the 17th C. He edits these pages by eliminating references to "Morocco" (stealthily marked as "minor" changes) with little or no regard for reliable sources or consensus (by my understanding, he has been banned from French WP & Spanish WP for this behavior). He has been warned multiple times on English WP for edit-warring and urged by multiple people to stop. Most recently, Bokpasa was warned by an admin on a three-revert rule on August 15. The account Luciusmaximus was created on August 16. And Luciusmaximus erupted today (Aug 21), undertaking a massive set of changes of exactly the same form as Bokpasa - elimination of all references to Morocco (marked as "minor") on those same pages, no attempt to provide sources or seek consensus, and the comments he has left (when he left them) are very similar in content, linguistics and style((e.g. "Eliminate alls morrocan nacionalismus" on Battle of Tangier, "Are you tried to eliminate history?" on my talk page, etc.) Very little doubt they are one and the same person. Walrasiad (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Walrasiad (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment: I think further action may be needed. He also used a wide range of Ips based in the same city and probably got away with violating multiple 3RRs while using them. His POV are truly disturbing, can you believe he tried to create an article on es.wiki (where he's indef blocked) called Spanish historical rights over Morocco? (In Spanish: Derechos históricos españoles sobre Marruecos), this is just the tip of the iceberg. --Tachfin (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The two user are  Confirmed matches to each other. TNXMan 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Bokpasa had been given a two-week block for sock-puppetry on August 22nd. He requested an overturn of that block, which was rejected on August 26th. On August 30th, IP address 79.146.52.91 began undertaking the exact same disruptive edits on Moroccan history pages characteristic of User:Bokpasa (e.g. Almoravid dynasty, Siege of Lisbon, Battle of Alarcos, etc., as can be verified on the contributions list), undertaking the same changes, using the identical style and grammar in his tags (e.g. "Clean, marrocan nacionalist`s argument" on Battle of Conseugra and "Undid integrist-expansionist moroccan" in Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, etc.). I am pretty confident this is User:Bokpasa again, using an IP address to evade the block. Walrasiad (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Tachfin (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Bokpasa has resumed sock-puppetry. He was given a two-week block for sock-puppetry on August 22nd, which he subsequently evaded with IP addresses 2.138.231.20 on August 23-27, 80.39.22.16 on August 28-29 and 79.146.52.91 on August 30-31. A sockpuppetry investigation yesterday re-set puppetmaster Bokpasa's block for two weeks. He surfaced again today, evading the new block with IP 95.16.88.208. It is almost certain to be him. The behavior of this IP address is identical to Bokpasa - disruptive edits on Moroccan history-related pages (History of Morocco, Almohad Caliphate, etc.) undertaking the same changes, using the identical style and grammar in his tags (e.g. "clean Morocco-centrism" in Almohad dynasty page, "Ceuta are not Morocco" in Conquest of Mellila, etc.). I am pretty confident this is User:Bokpasa again, using yet another IP address to evade the block again. Walrasiad (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (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
03 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting an IP's reversion of Bokpasa's block evasion. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2011 (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
03 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. (POV edit warring) Jasper Deng (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (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
04 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same pattern of edits, repeated offender with other Ips. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa Tachfin (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2011 (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
06 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same articles edited, same edit summaries Tachfin (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm sure semi-protection would work well if Bokpasa is going to sock at this level. Just a thought.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work, but he edits a big range should I file a report with a list of 100+ articles to semi-protect?
Yep, and that's best done without Twinkle. 100+ articles need to be protected only once each. 50+ IPs need to be blocked several times each.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will try to do that. I think he has an unlimited number of Ips, I don't think blocking those will be effective. Thanks for your help! Tachfin (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same as usual. Same articles and edit summaries Tachfin (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (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
17 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same behavior and articles edited Tachfin (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2011 (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
23 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

edit warring on the same articles again to include the same kind of edits Tachfin (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (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
26 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2011 (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
27 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack (as before). Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2011 (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
02 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same nationalist editing as before. Tachfin (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2011 (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
12 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits Tachfin (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2011 (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

 IP blocked –MuZemike 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits Tachfin (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2011 (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
18 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits Tachfin (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2011 (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
21 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2011 (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
25 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits Tachfin (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2011 (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
26 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Block evasion by Bokpasa. Same changes as always. Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2011 (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
27 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2011 (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

They appear to have stopped. Please refile if more activity occurs. TNXMan 15:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2011 (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
25 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2011 (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

This was previously dealt with. Closing for now since the IP is stale. Please continue to report any activity. Elockid (Talk) 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

This revert of a previous sock. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

same edits Tachfin (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked 3 days. Elockid (Talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Same edits. Walrasiad (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (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

Obvious duck. Blocked 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


03 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

same edits Tachfin (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2011 (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
25 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Quack Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Hello. I do not understand very well that it has happened. I have Englishman's level very small. Apparently a user has accused me of being a puppet. Really the only thing that I did was to correct a failure. I put that Ceuta is Spain and not Morocco. Does some mistake exist?. Sorry for my Englishman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.230.225 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Probably, which should be investigated is who I accuse myself of being a Sockpuppetry. The user Bokpasa does not stop reverting articles to others and it does not set any reference but false information. There will persist the erroneous information that it tries to solve? Thank you very much. 83.40.230.225 (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


A newly registered user persisting on linking the history of Morocco to the ones of Spain and Portugal as he does in these Bokpasa-like PoV-pushing editings. Note that, in this case, the two categories were added for the first time by an IP that seems to match some former IPs used by Bokpasa to evade his blocking. --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (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

First, all of the accounts in the archive are  Stale. Secondly, the connecting evidence seems thin. If I understand correctly, there's just the one suspicious edit (re-introducing categories)? TNXMan 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


per WP:DUCK : disruptive edits on Medieval Morocco and Spain related articles.

Since the IP is changing each time, maybe only the last active IP (87.222.219.69, active 14-19 June) has to be blocked.
Here is a list of some articles, templates and categories (main targets) that probably need protection:

Thanks in advance.
Omar-Toons (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (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

04 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Requesting a sockpuppet investigation on whether new editors User: Joan Valls82 and User:Jaume21 are sockpuppets of User: Bokpasa again.

User: Bokpasa had a long history of disruptive edits on Moroccan history pages. He came up with an original theory that Morocco did not exist prior to the 1660s, and has been on a monomanical mission of revising Moroccan history articles on Wikipedia, trying to eliminate any and all references to "Morocco" before the 17th C.

New editors User: Joan Valls82 and User:Jaume21 are undertaking the exact same type of disruptive edits, on the same pages, and edit-warring as Bokpasa did, with similar dismissive edit comment lines as Bokpasa did. Examples too numerous to mention. But their diffs can be seen on their contributions pages:

Neither Joan Valls82 nor Jaume21 have contributed to anything else but the usual same Moroccan history pages that Bokpasa used to try to change (Almohads, Marinids, Siege of Santarem, Battle of Alarcos, Siege of Algeciras, Battle of Tangier, Siege of Ceuta, etc.), in exactly the same manner. e.g. contribute zero content, but merely eliminate the word "Morocco", replacing it with the term "Marinid Dynasty" or some other term, remove all references to "Ceuta" as ever having been in Morocco, replace "Moroccan-Portuguese Conflicts" campaign template with "Reconquista" template, eliminate "Battles involving Morocco" category, etc.

e.g. 1437 Battle of Tangier: Bokpasa diff. Joan Valls 82 diff. Jaume21 diff

Their style too is identical. Similar poor English phrasing, all three explain their edits with dismissive things like "Morocco???? This is a joke????", "Undid morocco expansionist". Note stylistic excessive use of quadruple question marks (????), and penchant to accuse others of prejudice ("expansionist", "anti-portuguese", etc.). Like Bokpasa, they make no attempt to provide evidence or sources for their edits, or engage in discussions about them. All three consistently check the "minor edit" box in all their edits, to deceptively make their major changes appear minor, and refer to any reversal of their edits as "vandalism". (see prior Bokpasa sockpuppet investigations).

It seems utterly clear that Jaume 21 and Joan_Valls82 are sockpuppets of each other. They use the exact same wording in explanation tags, e.g. "Ceuta is in Spain" (Jaume 21 diff, Joan Valls 82 diff), e.g. "Morocco??? Why not Russia??? (by Jaume 21 diff) and "Morocco??? Why not Cyprus?" (by Joan Valls82 diff); "Morocco???? is an anachronism" (JV82 diff; J21 diff) "Undid vandalism" (JV82 diff J21 diff), etc.

The only question is whether they are both sockpuppets of Bokpasa. It seems to me they are. Bokpasa did the exact same thing a few years ago, with the same wording, in exactly the same manner. Bokpasa repeatedly attempted to sockpuppet and disruptively edit English Wiki after his indefinite block in 2011, but after a dozen or so sockpuppet investigations, seems to have given up on English Wikipedia after 2012 and migrated to French, Spanish and other Wikipedias since, and was eventually blocked there too in 2014, for much the same behavior. (see past Bokpasa sockpuppets)

Jaume21 re-appeared in French Wikipedia earlier this year, apparently conducting the same edits, and was brought under suspicion of being Bokpasa again (French request). Although it is not clear what the conclusion was reached there, Jaume21 was blocked on French Wikipedia on April 30, 2016. Both Joan_Valls82 and Jaume21 registered in English Wikipedia around that date (Jaume21 on April 2, Jaume21 on May 15) and both have been conducting a similar campaign here since.

I strongly suspect both User:Jaume21 and User:Joan Valls82 to be sockpuppets of each other and of User:Bokpasa as master puppeteer. While the gap of time between these two and Bokpasa may be considerable, the edits and language are near-identical, all three on the same monomaniacal mission to eliminate the word "Morocco", with practically no other contribution, intent on undertaking a similarly disruptive edits, and seem to have no interest in reaching out or being reached out to. I would like to request an investigation, to confirm we are dealing with Bokpasa deploying two socks to circumvent his indefinite block here. 01:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Walrasiad (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2016 (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

01 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


The same anti-moroccan agenda, the same interests and editing behaviors. He's using the same edit summary, "X is not morocco".

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

21 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Suspect that User:Alg01 is a sockpuppet of Bokpasa. Same POV pushing behavior as him. Lots and lots of edits removing and replacing Morocco with its "historical name". See: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

Attention was brought to this user via ANI, which prompted me to post this.

Thanks, Rockstonetalk to me! 18:17, 21 May 2019 (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

14 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


The same POV pushing. Removing of Morocco from articles with the edit summary "Morocco didn’t exist back then" ([17], [18], [19]). Let's compare the edits (Yusuf ibn Tashfin Alg01 Dzeyys removing the referenced content in Almohad Caliphate Lucas-Recio Dzeyys) TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2019 (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

08 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


This is another sock of Bockpasa. He's getting more sophisticated in his edits now. After months of hiding his true nature, he started today (8 February 2020) removing Morocco from the same historical articles:

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