Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iran nuclear weapons 2/Archive

08 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Ferschais and Iran nuclear weapons 2 are apparently blocked already. According to Ankhsoprah2 which is now blocked due to edit warring, Shazaami account, it was created two days ago, and its first edit was restoring POV, followed by editwarring and showing good knowledge of Wikipedia. Shazaami started just after blocked Beukford left. Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am the same person as Iran nuclear weapons and Iran nuclear weapons 2. My apologies for creating another account to comment here. Under the circumstances, I feel this is justified. A few comments. First of all, I was very clear from the start that I was an alternate account. . Admin knew that; I wasn't trying to hide it. In light of this, and the fact the I explicitly said I had a separate account for privacy, this investigation should not be proceeding at all, especially without a specific attempt by involved accounts to support each other in a discussion. Additionally, there is |Iran's campaign to silence people it doesn't like. I realize the risk from WP posting is slight, but that was my motivation for setting up the separate accounts. So you have an SPI going after the privacy of someone who created the account specifically in order to maintain privacy. Furthermore, the other users at the JCPOA article were aware that I was an alt account; I can dig up the diffs for that if it's important. So please stop this investigation and revdel it. Thank you.Iran nuclear weapons 3 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple more things. First of all, if you look at the discussion surrounding the August 31 block, it should be clear that I understood that I was not to use the alt accounts any more, and until this investigation came along and attacked my privacy, I have honored that. I felt at the time that I was a valid alt, said so repeatedly, and when I was told I wasn't, I stopped, until this came along. Isn't that a sign of a person honorably trying to follow policy? Lastly, whatever else you must do, please do not make any IP addresses public, I am begging you. At least respect my privacy that much. Iran nuclear weapons 3 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See also this. Until this investigation, I abided by it. Iran nuclear weapons 3 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me just say, for the record, that I didn't block the accounts because of "alternate account" reasons. While I don't believe in the conspiracy theories suggested by this user and their many accounts, I blocked them for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. We are not a free speech zone, not a webhost, not an activist website. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that User:Iran nuclear weapons made a asking for someone to include the contents of About this account from their talk page and the contents of their User page. --I am  Kethrus    Talk to me!   21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Group 1 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to any other accounts:
 * Group 2 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to any other accounts:
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other, are ❌ to Group 1, and are ✅ to Group 2 but require behavioral analysis:
 * A separate SPI should be created for Group 1 based on the oldest-created account. I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tagging.  The tagging should be done subsequent to the creation of the new SPI.  As an aside, the block log for LoveFerguson says it is an apparent sock of NoCal100.  LoveFerguson is ❌ to.
 * Although the technical evidence is very compelling, I will not take any action against the accounts in Group 3 until after the behavioral analysis is complete. Based on my own cursory review, I believe there is a behavioral connection.  Iran nuclear weapons 2 and MissPiggyEx both edited Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  MissPiggysBoyfriend and Iran nuclear weapons 2 also edited the article itself. I sense that Iran nuclear weapons 2 focuses on Iran-related articles, whereas the MissPiggy accounts do some work on Iran-related articles, but their reach is broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Iran nuclear weapons 3. There was no legitimate reason for them to create a new account. Iran nuclear weapons and Iran nuclear weapons 2 both have Talk page access. If they wanted to challenge anything related to their history, they could have done so at either place. From what I can gather of the odd history of these accounts,, whose input I would sincerely appreciate, blocked both accounts on August 31, 2015. I believe the individual's claim is that they created Iran nuclear weapons to protect their privacy related to an undisclosed earlier account. The individual says that the earlier account is "obvious", but I didn't see anyone agree with the individual. Assuming for the sake of argument that what the individual says is true, what was the reason for creating Iran nuclear weapons 2? If the individual wants to authenticate their initial claim without publicly disclosing the earlier account, they can appeal through WP:UTRS, which is set up to probe such claims without any actual disclosure of what they find. As to their claim that this SPI invades their privacy and their request on my Talk page to rev/del "your SPI", I see no basis for doing that. The disussions about their privacy are already public on their Talk pages, and none of the IP addresses used by any individual in this SPI has been publicly disclosed. If Drmies comments here, I'd also like his opinion of the behavior of the Iran nuclear weapons accounts and the MissPiggy accounts. Interestingly enough, the second MissPiggy account was created, not for privacy, but because the indivdual supposedly forgot their password to the earlier account.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just left a note under Iran NW's comment. I'll reiterate that their behavior was not that of an editor who is trying to improve our beautiful project. There can be legitimate reasons for an alternate account but in the absence of identifying information it's impossible to judge that. Fortunately, creating such essentially POV material as Nuclear concessions to Iran (even the title is an NPOV violation) as basically one's only contribution is reason enough to block. As for 2 and 3, I agree with you. They could have done any number of things to plead their case and get unblocked--though the fact remains that they were a POV editor from the get-go. Besides, it doesn't make sense. Why was 2 created on 17 August, when 1 was blocked only two weeks later? But in a way that's by-the-by. If this alternate activist wants to get something done they should do so via the first alternate account, but they'll still be a POV warrior. As for the other accounts, it does get fishy. I blocked Ferschais and Beukford, but again, not so much for socking but for general POV edits and edit warring (on Ali Khamenei and assholishness (on Talk:Ali Khamenei). Good luck with it, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any behavioural similarity in the edits of the "Group 3" accounts — and given the stretch of time since the last comment from anyone, it appears no one else sees behavioural grounds here either. I'm going to close this one with no further action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Group 3 – The following accounts are ✅ to each other, are ❌ to Group 1, and are ✅ to Group 2 but require behavioral analysis:
 * A separate SPI should be created for Group 1 based on the oldest-created account. I have blocked the unblocked accounts without tagging.  The tagging should be done subsequent to the creation of the new SPI.  As an aside, the block log for LoveFerguson says it is an apparent sock of NoCal100.  LoveFerguson is ❌ to.
 * Although the technical evidence is very compelling, I will not take any action against the accounts in Group 3 until after the behavioral analysis is complete. Based on my own cursory review, I believe there is a behavioral connection.  Iran nuclear weapons 2 and MissPiggyEx both edited Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  MissPiggysBoyfriend and Iran nuclear weapons 2 also edited the article itself. I sense that Iran nuclear weapons 2 focuses on Iran-related articles, whereas the MissPiggy accounts do some work on Iran-related articles, but their reach is broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Iran nuclear weapons 3. There was no legitimate reason for them to create a new account. Iran nuclear weapons and Iran nuclear weapons 2 both have Talk page access. If they wanted to challenge anything related to their history, they could have done so at either place. From what I can gather of the odd history of these accounts,, whose input I would sincerely appreciate, blocked both accounts on August 31, 2015. I believe the individual's claim is that they created Iran nuclear weapons to protect their privacy related to an undisclosed earlier account. The individual says that the earlier account is "obvious", but I didn't see anyone agree with the individual. Assuming for the sake of argument that what the individual says is true, what was the reason for creating Iran nuclear weapons 2? If the individual wants to authenticate their initial claim without publicly disclosing the earlier account, they can appeal through WP:UTRS, which is set up to probe such claims without any actual disclosure of what they find. As to their claim that this SPI invades their privacy and their request on my Talk page to rev/del "your SPI", I see no basis for doing that. The disussions about their privacy are already public on their Talk pages, and none of the IP addresses used by any individual in this SPI has been publicly disclosed. If Drmies comments here, I'd also like his opinion of the behavior of the Iran nuclear weapons accounts and the MissPiggy accounts. Interestingly enough, the second MissPiggy account was created, not for privacy, but because the indivdual supposedly forgot their password to the earlier account.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just left a note under Iran NW's comment. I'll reiterate that their behavior was not that of an editor who is trying to improve our beautiful project. There can be legitimate reasons for an alternate account but in the absence of identifying information it's impossible to judge that. Fortunately, creating such essentially POV material as Nuclear concessions to Iran (even the title is an NPOV violation) as basically one's only contribution is reason enough to block. As for 2 and 3, I agree with you. They could have done any number of things to plead their case and get unblocked--though the fact remains that they were a POV editor from the get-go. Besides, it doesn't make sense. Why was 2 created on 17 August, when 1 was blocked only two weeks later? But in a way that's by-the-by. If this alternate activist wants to get something done they should do so via the first alternate account, but they'll still be a POV warrior. As for the other accounts, it does get fishy. I blocked Ferschais and Beukford, but again, not so much for socking but for general POV edits and edit warring (on Ali Khamenei and assholishness (on Talk:Ali Khamenei). Good luck with it, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any behavioural similarity in the edits of the "Group 3" accounts — and given the stretch of time since the last comment from anyone, it appears no one else sees behavioural grounds here either. I'm going to close this one with no further action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the technical evidence is very compelling, I will not take any action against the accounts in Group 3 until after the behavioral analysis is complete. Based on my own cursory review, I believe there is a behavioral connection.  Iran nuclear weapons 2 and MissPiggyEx both edited Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  MissPiggysBoyfriend and Iran nuclear weapons 2 also edited the article itself. I sense that Iran nuclear weapons 2 focuses on Iran-related articles, whereas the MissPiggy accounts do some work on Iran-related articles, but their reach is broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Iran nuclear weapons 3. There was no legitimate reason for them to create a new account. Iran nuclear weapons and Iran nuclear weapons 2 both have Talk page access. If they wanted to challenge anything related to their history, they could have done so at either place. From what I can gather of the odd history of these accounts,, whose input I would sincerely appreciate, blocked both accounts on August 31, 2015. I believe the individual's claim is that they created Iran nuclear weapons to protect their privacy related to an undisclosed earlier account. The individual says that the earlier account is "obvious", but I didn't see anyone agree with the individual. Assuming for the sake of argument that what the individual says is true, what was the reason for creating Iran nuclear weapons 2? If the individual wants to authenticate their initial claim without publicly disclosing the earlier account, they can appeal through WP:UTRS, which is set up to probe such claims without any actual disclosure of what they find. As to their claim that this SPI invades their privacy and their request on my Talk page to rev/del "your SPI", I see no basis for doing that. The disussions about their privacy are already public on their Talk pages, and none of the IP addresses used by any individual in this SPI has been publicly disclosed. If Drmies comments here, I'd also like his opinion of the behavior of the Iran nuclear weapons accounts and the MissPiggy accounts. Interestingly enough, the second MissPiggy account was created, not for privacy, but because the indivdual supposedly forgot their password to the earlier account.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just left a note under Iran NW's comment. I'll reiterate that their behavior was not that of an editor who is trying to improve our beautiful project. There can be legitimate reasons for an alternate account but in the absence of identifying information it's impossible to judge that. Fortunately, creating such essentially POV material as Nuclear concessions to Iran (even the title is an NPOV violation) as basically one's only contribution is reason enough to block. As for 2 and 3, I agree with you. They could have done any number of things to plead their case and get unblocked--though the fact remains that they were a POV editor from the get-go. Besides, it doesn't make sense. Why was 2 created on 17 August, when 1 was blocked only two weeks later? But in a way that's by-the-by. If this alternate activist wants to get something done they should do so via the first alternate account, but they'll still be a POV warrior. As for the other accounts, it does get fishy. I blocked Ferschais and Beukford, but again, not so much for socking but for general POV edits and edit warring (on Ali Khamenei and assholishness (on Talk:Ali Khamenei). Good luck with it, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any behavioural similarity in the edits of the "Group 3" accounts — and given the stretch of time since the last comment from anyone, it appears no one else sees behavioural grounds here either. I'm going to close this one with no further action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Filing this on behalf of, who presented some evidence of a link between and  at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Below is the evidence presented so far. If more details are needed, it sounds like ජපස wants a checkuser to email them so that ජපස can reveal some private clues.

Even though this user was recently indeffed, I feel an SPI to investigate this would be a worthwhile use of time because 1) sleepers, 2) effect on future unblock requests, 3) rumor control, 4) closure to know who the sockmaster is. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by PaleoNeonate
Before it is archived I thought I'd add this comment, I'm not sure if this is part of the evidence Jps uses, but possibly pertinent may be: Special:Diff/1164740446, Special:Permalink/679963504. — Paleo Neonate  – 13:28, 30 July 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

 * . There is just an assertion with no evidence here, and I'm not willing to go diving for it. If or someone else wants to present some diffs – be it here or privately – they are welcome to do so, and I'd be happy to revisit the decline then.  --Blablubbs (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No further evidence has been provided and the user is already indeffed. Closing. Spicy (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)