Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Iampharzad was obsessed on reducing the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras as much as possible, without caring about the sources he used (and removed) and whatnot (eg  ). He ended up getting indeffed for a next level harassment of me (as you can see in his last edits in my talk page ).

Mahmud1401 tries to reduce the Mongol aspect of the Aimaq people (closely related to the Hazaras)  , completely disregarding the already cited source(s) and also uses misattributed and questionable sources. For some reason, he was very against me writing a warning to his talk page, immediately removing it and saying I shouldn't write in his talk page. Though I am far from the first person who has posted a warning on his talk page, so why is he so much against me - just another stranger? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:26, 2 November 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

 * This is in to  territory - same country, similar very common user agents, but no overlap on IP ranges.    Girth Summit  (blether)  11:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In light of the CU results, I don't think the behavioural evidence is convincing enough to conclude that these are the same editor as opposed to two people with similar nationalist views. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


There is reason to believe that Abdulhy is a sockpuppet of the blocked Iampharzad. Both users were involved in a war of edits regarding the Mongolian components in articles about the Hazaras. Diffs: 1, 2, 3 4. Both users are characterized by destructive editing. On talk page was an opinion that, "Abdulhy is "discussing" in the exact same vague way as Iampharzad whilst simultaneously edit warring".--KoizumiBS (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

What does inconclusive precisely mean in this context? There are loads of parallels between these two users, but it's a bit problematic to show diffs for it, as these parallels only make sense when you look at how they behave in whole discussions/disputes and whatnot. Both are obsessed on minimizing the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras, randomly creating several talk page sections for the same topic instead of just using the first section (Iampharzad:  ) (Abdulhy:  ). In these sections, they both write a confusing/broken form of English, and have WP:CIR/WP:POV issues, failing/refusing again and again to understand what other users are telling them. Both also end their comment by saying "Thanks" (Iampharzad eg  ) (Abdulhy eg   ). Both removed info at Hazaras that states that Mongolian was widespread amongst them in the 16th-century  --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checkuser is ; . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * inconclusive means the CU data isn't very useful for either conclusion, and so the decision should be made based off behaviour. In this case, the behavioural evidence you've provided plus some other things I found are enough for me to block . DatGuyTalkContribs 21:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
EXTREMELY similar EIU, with edits in obscure minor articles such as Sheikh Ali District, Sayghan District, etc. The EIU also shows that they are extremely active in articles related to the Hazara ethnic group - Noooori333 with 63 edits in Hazaras, Iampharzad/Abdulhy with the combined edits of 192 in the article, and so on.

As seen in the previous SPIs, the main issue with Iampharzad was their pov pushing attempts to minimize the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. Nooori333 does the exact same thing, which me and —like with Iampharzad/Abdulhy—had to revert

Like Iampharzad/Abdulhy, Nooori333 also misrepresents what sources says, instead making up his own stuff, as seen here for example

This is harder to demonstrate, but Nooori333's English skills are very reminiscent of Iampharzads, and like the latter he also has heavy WP:CIR (or just more WP:POV) issues. Here for example I can't even get one proper explanation out of Nooori333. This was the exact struggle we had with Iampharzad/Abdulhy, which can for example be seen in these three sections at Talk:Hazaras.

This was also Nooori333's second edit in Wikipedia, pretty impressive formatting for a new user HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This has been up for almost a month now. Can an admin please evaluate this report? They have so many similarities it can't be a coincidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (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

 * This account is using different IPs from, but from the CU logs I see that they are editing from the same range as the original Iampharzad account. It is a fairly narrow, quiet range, which puts me in territory from a technical perspective, but I'll say  to be sure.   Girth Summit  (blether)  19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - the combination of behavioural and CU evidence is convincing. Please indef Nooori333 as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I too find the combination convincing. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * 1) Jadidjw has extremely similar EIA with both socks in many niche articles, including in Sheikh Ali District.
 * 2) As seen in the previous SPIs, the main issue with Iampharzad was their pov pushing attempts to minimize the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. Jadidjw does the exact same thing (eg  ). Like Iampharzad , Jadidjw also randomly reverts during an ongoing discussion
 * 3) This is harder to demonstrate, but Jadidjw's English skills are very reminiscent of Iampharzads, and like the latter he also has heavy WP:CIR (or just more WP:POV) issues. For example, right now much of what Jadidjw is saying is not making much sense/lacks clarification, which have led to these comments by one of our fellow users; Dear Jadidjw, I am not sure to which study you refer to? / Could you please elaborate which points do you consider as problematic? Dear Jadidjw, would you please at first clarify the raised points? Which paper you are referring to?. Compare it to one of my many discussions with the sock for example; this is the smallest I have, or a larger one here if you will
 * 4) After removing information about the Mongol component of the Hazaras, both claim that they "did not remove anything", which is just blatantly lying  HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Hello! User:HistoryofIran started the discussion on me here. He argues that I am Iampharzad's Sockpuppet, while I do not know that person. He gives these examples, like: here an editing error was made by me, which I fixed here also see here  carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadidjw (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this user for a month for edit warring in a contentious topic area. (Of course if the checkuser comes back as a likely or confirmed sock, that block should be made indef) Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU puts this account in the same country as Iampharzad, but they're on different ranges.   Girth Summit  (blether)  13:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Behavioural evidence is inconclusive. There's enough reasonable doubt to close this with no action taken. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


There is reason to believe that Bravehm is a sockpuppet of the blocked and. Jadidjw was involved in a war of edits regarding the Mongolian components in articles about the Hazaras: diff. He also deleted sources, claiming they were false: diff. According to Bravehm, correcting the text and returning information about the Mongolian origin is nothing more than made inappropriate changes in the article: diff. Bravehm started editing the page after Jadidjw was blocked. All users have a similar edit history.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

hello users, this Sock user does not belong to me, I only have one account, now I am active with it on Wikipedia.--Bravehm (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why HistoryofIran has taken such a strong stance against my edits and considers my user account to be a Sockpuppet, while this is only and only my User account. Those accounts that HistoryofIran refers to are not related to me.--Bravehm (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm calls KoizumiBS restoration of sourced information about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (which was removed by Jadidjw) as "removal of sourced content", yet KoizumiBS literally did the opposite of that. Interestingly enough, Jadidjw and Iampharzad (whom I still believe is the same person) both removed sourced information about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara, claiming that they did not remove anything. In other words, all three claim the opposite of what has been done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Just like the other users in the past SPIs, Bravehm also writes a confusing/broken form of English, and have WP:CIR issues. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like the other users, Bravehm has also begun removing/altering sourced information about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara . HistoryofIran (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bravehm more or less restored the edit of another sock (Sockpuppet investigations/HazaraHistorian), both misusing Mousavi . HistoryofIran (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The accounts you are referring to are not related to me. Bravehm (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been up for a month. Can someone please take a look? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All past accounts are . . Spicy (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Behaviorally, there are some similarities but also some key differences from previous socks. To me, it looks more like a different editor with a similar POV. In the absence of technical evidence there isn't enough here to justify a block. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)