Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarcrMac/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The sock reverts an edit in the article and opens an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_a_reliable_source? inquiry] in the WP:RSN and is proven wrong. IP1 defends the sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_a_reliable_source? here] in the WP:RSN. IP2 pushes that opinion in the article here and here. Kazemita1 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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
It would be more useful if you linked to specific edits, not just to sections of pages. Be that as it may, I don't see anything obviously suspicious here. BarcrMac has a 2+ year editing history. It's going to take more than a few edits by IP's to convince me there's socking going on. I'll leave this open in case somebody else has another opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Would it change your mind if I only asked to check the IPs? As a matter of fact the checkUser request was orignally based on the IPs.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roy's assessment. BarcrMac's post to WP:RSN was a straight up question on an issue where they had doubts. If thry were acting to suppress a source that could have been done without going to WP:RSN. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All the users reported here are similar in their history; 1- They start by editing unrelated pages to those of Iran related articles, 2- Go on hiatus, 3- Return to Wiki with their interest changing totally towards Iran related articles, specially those related to People's Mujahedin of Iran (aka MEK). The users often have meaningful inactivity periods which can be justified by looking at the situation of other accounts. It seems as if the same strategy is behind all the accounts. The following report reminds "it seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)"

Stefka Bulgaria was registered on 18 December 2017. Having begun editing on 18 December 017, Stefka Bulgaria did a great deal of edits probably to become an extended confirmed (he made 100 edits in less than one week with the 100th edit being on 24 December 2017. It's very interesting that the "newbie" made 50 edits in less than two days by making a mixture of major and minor edits in between). His edits in the first days after creation are really too technical for a newbie (see, , and etc).
 * Closely similar history (the critical period of April-July 2018)'''

Almost when he became an autoconfirmed user, Stefka Bulgaria stopped editing and remained inactive for 5 months, after which, he started editing the MEK-related articles on 23 May 2018. It was a very sharp shift from un-related topics Stefka Bulgaria used to edit, to articles regarding MEK. Needless to stress that he tried to change his editing pattern again exactly when he was reported at the SPI. Stefka Bulgaria, for instance, fell in love with the Brazilian jiu-jitsu, just when I reported him at the SPI.

On the other hand, BarcrMac, who had registered on 26 April 2017 (the same year Stefka Bulgaria had registered), made no edits until one year later on 25 June 2018, just one month after Stefka Bulgaria resumed editing. BacrMac was blocked twice for participating an edit war which was apparently done to support the positions of the other two accounts, Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch. In a sharp shift, just like other accounts, BarcrMac began editing Iran related articles from 2 September 2018 on, after the period he had edited a handful of totally unrelated pages.

Idealigic is just there when they need his help for the RFCs. He was registered on 23 July 2018 and made some edits on that day. He stopped editing until more than a year later when he returns to wiki on 28 March 2019. There’s another gap in his editing days which ends on 27 November 2019 when he returns with a sharp shift in his editing pattern (just compare the articles he edits before and after this date). Idealigic removes a content in favor of Stefka Bularia et al. just when other users are discussing a list of disputed sources, including the one Idealigic removes.

There are close similarities in the Time cards of BarcrMac, Idealigic and Stefka Bulgaria. Ypatch, on the other hand, started editing on 29 April 2018. So, April-July 2018 had been a critical period when users reported here either restarted editing or were registered during that period. Digging more into the incidents, London Hall was reported by Pahlevun in the pro-MEK scokfarm on 24 March 2018 (exactly before the critical period of April-July 2018). BarcMac's return after one year, Stefka Bulgaria's return after 5 months, Ypatch's and Idealigic's registrations all occurred just after that incident. London Hall was not CUed since the sockfarm’s main user was blocked and inactive at the time. However, he was blocked for another reason and later it was found that he was misusing at least another account. This is just what I guess. London Hall was blocked on 13 May 2018 and Ypatch did his second edit two days later on 15 May 2018!


 * Some more clues
 * They have closely similar pages of interest:
 * People's Mujahedin of Iran, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Maryam Rajavi, Massoud Rajavi, Hafte Tir bombing


 * BarcrMac’s entrance to MEK article happened when he participated an RFC.
 * Ypatch’s first edit to the talk page of MEK was to participate a RFC, as well. Ypatch's first edit to MEK was on 17 May 2019, the date he became an extended confirmed user.
 * The reported users use long edit summaries:
 * - BarcrMac: ”Discussed in talk page. MEK attacks on the IRI are already in the next sentences - "it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." and "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government,”, ”Back to the longstanding version. Discussed in TP and edit warring noticeboard that there is no consensus for this -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kazemita1_reported_by_User:BarcrMac_(Result:_Stale,_warning)”


 * - Stefka Bulgaria: ”Despite the subject of the article being controversial, this is not controverislal infomation. As noted, it resumes when/how/why, which is arguably the most important aspect of the organization's background. Please refrain from disruptive editing”, "As a means to slander, Khomeini (no Iran) used the term "hpocrites" to describe this group after they came in direct conflict with the clerics. The MEK also used other slander to describe Khomeini and the clerics, but this should not be included here, as also this should not be included her.”


 * - Ypatch: ”See talk page discussion "Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences". Restoring unsubstantiated removal of long standing text “, ”Restoring long standing version based on this observation giving false impression that there is some kind of evidence that the MEK carried out this attack, but there isn't any evidence. Objection also substantiated in talk page.”


 * They share almost same POV as other socks with regard to MEK and Iran. They try to censor "unflattering material about the PMOI" and do "only a handful of edits unrelated to Iran or the PMOI between them". Needless to say that, as I mentioned earlier, Stefka Bulgaria changed the editing pattern just after I reported him. So, same thing would go for the rest since they all adopt this strategy.
 * They are struggling to show MEK is not a Marxist group (they usually do it by removing “Mraxism” from the infobox):
 * - Stefka Bulgaria: ,
 * - Ypatch:


 * They are struggling to show MEK is an "anti-fundamentalist" group by adding it into the lead;
 * - Stefka Bulgaria:
 * -Ypatch:


 * They use "Let’s do one [two] [point] at a time". The accounts use similar strategy when there are multiple points to be addressed under the same topic:
 * - Stefka Bulgaria: ,
 * - BarcrMac:


 * On multiple occasions, Stefka Bulgaria used to defend Ypatch’s edits when I questioned them:
 * - in response to my comment against Ypatch
 * - in response to my comment against Ypatch
 * - in response to my comment against Ypatch.
 * - The first time I enclosed this behavior here. It’s interesting to know Ypatch stopped editing MEK and its talk page after I talked about a “pattern” of Stefka Bulgaria defending Ypatch.


 * Stefka Bulgaria provides the justification and Ypatch does the edit:
 * - In This discussion, started by Stefka Bulgaria, Ypatch acts according to the justifications provided by Stefka Bulgaris. Ypatch had not participated the dispute at the time of making the edit.
 * - “Per what Stefka said in the Talk page: Rubin does not "describe the MEK as a cult" but says…”
 * - “As said in the Talk page, removing the first Guardian source that says "Widely regarded as a cult" since it does not support "media outlets have described it as a cult"… (justification was provided by Stefka Bulgaria here)


 * Ypatch stopped editing on 4 August 2018 for 5 months. I would see it meaningfully connected to the Stefka Bulgaria's not editing in MEK page from 1 August 2018 when he was very busy with this ANI report which started on 30 July 2018.  M h hossein   talk 04:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the users here are connected to this farm. Also, some of the users reported here are activated after more than a year to comment in the TP's RFCs. This is very weird. Not finished yet, I said that Stefka Bulgaria stopped editing in December 2017 and it is too much of a coincidence that TheDreamBoat also stopped editing in December 2017 and did not edit until more than a year later on 10 May 2019 when he participated an RFC on the MEK talk page. Another interesting point is the close similarities between the user pages of TheDreamBoat and Ypatch. -- M h hossein   talk 07:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. There's something wrong. TheDreamBoat, whose has made just pro MEK edits, comes after 2 years to support a team! The evidences I provided here are just credible. Dozens of pro-MEK accounts were reported by TheTimesAreAChanging and got blocked. Now, another team of users with closely similar POVs are working in an organized manner. The dates I provided above all adds to our suspicion. They can't be just coincidence. -- M h hossein   talk 06:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
If I only had a dollar for every time Mhhossein has reported me (yet, I've never been blocked, while Mhhossein was recently blocked for Tendentious behavior)... In any case, fell free to CU me at any time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Behavioral evidence suggests that the users are more likely to simply share a similar viewpoint. That said, some of the overlaps were suspect, so I did a check, and they are ❌. Closing per negative findings. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)