Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blue-Continent/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All of these accounts were created around April 2015, and are all focused primarily on topics related to Iranian digital artist Hamid Naderi Yeganeh. Beyond that, they have added categories ("Tall men" for Sdfehyj, "People with Erdős number 4" for Hector Trojan, "Mathematical art" for D-4597-aR, "‎HuffPost bloggers" for Blue-Continent). They also have all occasionally used all-caps edit summaries. I think they are all the same person. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (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

 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree these are all the same person or a small group of people working together to promote Yeganeh. . GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sneaky promotion of Hamid Naderi Yeganeh.

Catherine Ziaie and Little Naz are clearly the same person, both having gamed auto-confirmed to create semi-identical articles with the same odd title: Fish (geometric shape) and Human Face (geometric shape), and having added it to Template:Digital art. Is an attempt to promote Hamid Naderi Yeganeh under-the-radar – the articles don't mention him but all the sources are about him. A direct copy of the wording in A Bird in Flight made by a previous sock.Fractalartlover's username is a hint, created Template:Hamid Naderi Yeganeh and the Template:Digital art which hugely WP:UNDUE-ly promotes Yeganeh under "Notable artwork", which now sits prominently at the bottom of all digital artwork related articles. Among his first actions here was to create Template:Mathematics in Iran (edited by previous socks  and ) which of course features Yeganah and was added to dozens of articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

What are you doing? You didn't even inform me about it. I noticed about this investigation by checking my page's "What links here". Isn't it a violation of Wikipedia policy that a user starts an investigation without informing the related users? You have to inform a user that you have nominated it for a Sockpuppet investigation. I don't know any of those other accounts. I created Template:Mathematics in Iran because I'm from Iran. I've edited some pages about Naderi Yeganeh's work because:


 * He is one of my countrymen. I know him because he is a famous person in the Iran's scientific community.
 * I'm interested in sci-art and math.

Are you sure that I have edited only Naderi Yeganeh related pages. I have edited many math-related and digital art-related pages.

Again, I'm asking you this question: Why aren't you informing those users about this investigation? Do you want to inform them after blocking them? So they cannot defend themselves before getting blocked?

That you aren't informing them, is just making this investigation one-sided and biased. Fractalartlover (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, Catherine Ziaie and Little Naz and ... are the same person. But What does it have to do with me? You are just mass blocking Wikipedia users without informing them. Fractalartlover (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, despite being innocent, I will be blocked by this investigation. But I want you to know that this investigation is one-sided because you are not informing the suspected users. Fractalartlover (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've created the following templates: Template:Mathematics in Iran, Template:International mathematical activities, Template:Mathematics in the United Kingdom, Template:Mathematics in Canada. But the nominator is just mentioning Template:Mathematics in Iran to mislead the admin. Why didn't the nominator mention the other templates? Fractalartlover (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because I'm interested in editing articles about a person doesn't mean I'm related to the other editors. Am I right? Fractalartlover (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I ask it again: Why aren't you informing the suspected users? Fractalartlover (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear admin, I checked the archived investigation too: Sockpuppet investigations/Blue-Continent/Archive Both of the nominators (the current and the previous nominators) didn't inform the suspected users. I believe it is a trick to not let the suspected users to defend themselves. I believe both of the investigations are one-sided because the suspected users didn't have the opportunity to defend themselves. Fractalartlover (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Blablubbs, because it is a mass blocking case, the nominator has to inform the suspected users. Perhaps there are a number of innocent users. I've been offended by this investigation and it is changing my mind about Wikipedia. I've created a number of pages that I think they can be useful and I did those edits without being paid just to increase the value of Wikipedia. And now I'm hearing from you that I don't have the right to get informed about this mass blocking. Fractalartlover (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Blablubbs, the nominator has titled this investigation as "Sneaky promotion of Hamid Naderi Yeganeh". Isn't it an insult from one Wikipedian to another Wikipedian? When the nominator titles the investigation as Sneaky promotion, then the readers will conclude that each of the suspected users are sneak. Isn't it an insult? It is the first time since the start of the pandemic that I'm hearing an insult. Can the nominator use this kind of language? Fractalartlover (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Blablubbs, May I notify the suspected users by myself? Fractalartlover (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Blablubbs, sorry for sending multiple messages. You strongly recommend me that I don't have to notify the suspected users. Then what happens? A one sided investigation will block all the suspected users, including me. However, I listen to your recommendation. But I believe that all suspected users should be notified about this investigation. Fractalartlover (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To all who reads this investagation, take a look at my contributions. I've edited about 200 articles and none of my edits is reverted. Indeed, I did nothing wrong. I'm accused of   having other users which I don't. Please everyone who can legitimately inform the other suspected users, please inform all the suspected users so that they can defend themselves. I'm not allowed to do this and I will probably be blocked in the near future. Fractalartlover (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for writing too many messages, I ASSERT that I'm not one of the User:Blue-Continent's sockpuppets. Fractalartlover (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In our last episode, said, I agree these are all the same person or a small group of people working together to promote Yeganeh, which applies equally well here; from what I can see, it could be either.  Hector Trojan and Sdfehyj are not stale, so please compare to those.  The fact that Thousand1000,1000 was warehoused for almost 6 years says this is part of a long-term organized socking organization, so a sleeper check would be a good idea too. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We generally don't inform suspected users because unsolicited comments rarely change the outcomes of cases – whether they are socking or not socking, users are always going to deny that they're abusing multiple accounts. The SPI team's role is to impartially evaluate cases of suspected sockpuppetry and take appropriate action, and we're capable of seeing similarities as well as differences – we're not out to get anyone. Whenever we believe that their input would be helpful, we do notify accused users. I'm sorry if you're not engaged in sockpuppetry or coordinated illegitimate activity and this investigation is causing you stress, but I'm afraid you will just have to let the process play out. Blablubbs&#124;talk 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not block people indiscriminately; regardless of the number of suspected sockpuppets, the conduct of each is examined individually. As I said above, there is no obligation to notify affected users – it is, in fact, usually discouraged because it does not change the outcome of the case, it just generates more stress for everyone involved. Blablubbs&#124;talk 23:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest you don't. I also can't litigate the process here any further; I think I have explained everything that I can explain. Blablubbs&#124;talk 00:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say after reviewing this that I'm less confident behaviorally about Fractalartlover and BBFFHHNN, though the former's behavior is somewhat reminiscent of Hector Trojan. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also found and ✅:
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm perfectly OK if the answer is, "CU secret, I can't talk about it", but I'm curious how Jeff1860, who hasn't edited in 6 years, can be confirmed? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - Usually it's a successful or failed login attempt. Those are logged with IP addresses and viewable in checkuser data.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Makes sense, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - No problem. I can also take another look if you still have reservations with blocking that account. There was a lot of data to go through... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I'm fine. The closeness in account creation dates between Jeff1860, and Blue-Continent is another hint.  To state the obvious, given not just the number of socks, but how far back some of them go, it's clear this is a well-organized operation.  It makes perfect sense that the owner would want to pre-flight warehoused accounts to see which ones are still usable before proceeding with a new assignment. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, the only one that gives me pause is Fractalartlover. It just seems odd that what's obviously a big sock shop would put so much effort into defending a single account, especially one which hasn't accumulated any useful permissions, not even WP:XC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping on the above. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - I re-checked that account, and I can definitely confirm it to a number of other accounts on that list. The timeline fits perfectly with the technical logs and data that I have. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks. He does get points for a convincing theatrical performance. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm perfectly OK if the answer is, "CU secret, I can't talk about it", but I'm curious how Jeff1860, who hasn't edited in 6 years, can be confirmed? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - Usually it's a successful or failed login attempt. Those are logged with IP addresses and viewable in checkuser data.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Makes sense, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - No problem. I can also take another look if you still have reservations with blocking that account. There was a lot of data to go through... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I'm fine. The closeness in account creation dates between Jeff1860, and Blue-Continent is another hint.  To state the obvious, given not just the number of socks, but how far back some of them go, it's clear this is a well-organized operation.  It makes perfect sense that the owner would want to pre-flight warehoused accounts to see which ones are still usable before proceeding with a new assignment. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, the only one that gives me pause is Fractalartlover. It just seems odd that what's obviously a big sock shop would put so much effort into defending a single account, especially one which hasn't accumulated any useful permissions, not even WP:XC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping on the above. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - I re-checked that account, and I can definitely confirm it to a number of other accounts on that list. The timeline fits perfectly with the technical logs and data that I have. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks. He does get points for a convincing theatrical performance. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm perfectly OK if the answer is, "CU secret, I can't talk about it", but I'm curious how Jeff1860, who hasn't edited in 6 years, can be confirmed? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - Usually it's a successful or failed login attempt. Those are logged with IP addresses and viewable in checkuser data.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Makes sense, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - No problem. I can also take another look if you still have reservations with blocking that account. There was a lot of data to go through... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I'm fine. The closeness in account creation dates between Jeff1860, and Blue-Continent is another hint.  To state the obvious, given not just the number of socks, but how far back some of them go, it's clear this is a well-organized operation.  It makes perfect sense that the owner would want to pre-flight warehoused accounts to see which ones are still usable before proceeding with a new assignment. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, the only one that gives me pause is Fractalartlover. It just seems odd that what's obviously a big sock shop would put so much effort into defending a single account, especially one which hasn't accumulated any useful permissions, not even WP:XC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping on the above. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - I re-checked that account, and I can definitely confirm it to a number of other accounts on that list. The timeline fits perfectly with the technical logs and data that I have. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks. He does get points for a convincing theatrical performance. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, the only one that gives me pause is Fractalartlover. It just seems odd that what's obviously a big sock shop would put so much effort into defending a single account, especially one which hasn't accumulated any useful permissions, not even WP:XC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping on the above. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - I re-checked that account, and I can definitely confirm it to a number of other accounts on that list. The timeline fits perfectly with the technical logs and data that I have. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks. He does get points for a convincing theatrical performance. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked/tagged all the CU-confirmed accounts. Also went back and re-blocked MP NT C (previously blocked for a non-socking reason), and retagged a few accounts which were previously tagged as less-than-confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything is already done here. Closing. Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Previous accounts in this sockfarm have been focused on promoting Hamid Naderi Yeganeh. Natural Helnorama created Africa (fractal), an article about a fractal discovered by Yeganeh. An IP initiated a discussion about merging this article on its talk page, in which Natural Helnorama pinged various editors, including. This is curious because Nancy CeriS has very few edits and has never previously interacted with Natural Helnorama on-wiki. NH and NC both expressed a desire to keep the article. Nancy's only other significant contribution is an edit to Hamid Naderi Yeganeh:. Special:Contributions/Niagara Klow is another WP:SPA account in the history of Yeganeh with a similar username pattern (there are several others but they are all stale).

Special:Contributions/Pointly is not quite a SPA but has an overwhelming focus on Yeganeh. Pointly was pinged and commented in favour of keeping an article about a work by Yeganeh in this merge discussion. The discussion was initiated by, who was also the creator of the article in question. The formatting of Wasraw's post is very similar to that of the IP on the Africa (fractal) page, and Wasraw had never interacted with Pointly prior to pinging them. I believe these users and the IP are the same person/operation trying to preempt a good-faith merge/deletion discussion. Spicy (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2022 (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

 * - I'd be surprised if there weren't more of these (see also previous filing), but I'm tired of going down the sock rabbit hole. If you're going to compare to CU logs, note that I suspect that the accounts' location has changed since the last filing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Natural Helnorama, Nancy CeriS, Pointly, and Wasraw are ✅ to each other; I'll block those accounts, but leaving the tagging to a clerk. Niagara Klow is ❌.  The next question is whether they're Blue-Continent socks or not.  I don't have much historical data in this case, but the little bit I've got says probably not.   -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Double-tagged the blocked accounts. As I mentioned above, I believe the sockmaster has relocated. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)