Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazemita1/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A few weeks ago I filed a SPI that involved User:Kazemita1, who was blocked on December 26th, 2019 for edit warring. Since then several IPs have been removing the same identical information that Kazemita1 was blocked for removing:

Removing "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there."
 * 78.38.77.36
 * 95.38.141.117
 * Kazemita1

Removing "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members" and replacing it with "on this topic".

*5.212.193.42 *Kazemita1
 * Kazemita1

The behavioural evidence seems identical. Alex-h (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2020 (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

 * Not much point in blocking random IP's with no history. The more useful approach would be to protect the page, which I see User:El C has already done, so closing this with no action.  If any of those IPs show up again, we can consider blocking them at that time.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the IPs but Kazemita1, who is coming out of their block in a couple of days and seems to be behind these edits even though they're supposed to be blocked. Alex-h (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. For the moment, the page is protected, so the IPs won't be able to do any more harm.  Let's just wait and see what happens when the block expires.  If he goes back to his disruptive behavior, I imagine the next block will be for a considerably longer time span.  I've added a note into the block log so any future admin who goes to block him will know about this exchange.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Upon further consultation, I have ifdefed User:Kazemita1. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

recently closed a RfC on the MEK page, concluding that certain statements shouldn't be included on that page. This prompted IP 31.2.155.95 to question SpinningSpark's close (on SpinningSpark's talk page), with Kazemita1 piling on the IP's objection shortly after (saying "Follow up on the IP's question..."). It is fairly evident that both the IP and Kazemita1 are the same user trying to come across as if the objections were coming from two different users; the first clue is in the way they both use "--" to sign their posts.

has been sanctioned for using IPs as socks/meats in the past: first he was blocked (several times) for continued edit warring on the MEK page, and during his last block, used several different IPs to continue edit-warring on the MEK page while blocked, which led to a SPI that concluded with Kazemita1 being indefinitely blocked. Kazemita appealed his block a few times until it was eventually changed to 3 months. Kazemita1's first edit after his block expired was to continue edit-warring on a MEK-related page, which led to yet another report. After the report was deemed inconclusive because Kazemita had become absent from editing, Kazemita returned to editing the MEK page, this time stone-walling discussions there. All in all, this user has been given many chances to mend his ways, but continues to be disruptive and it looks like he's continuing to use IPs to make it look like they're different users. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In that complaint:


 * both the IP and Kazemita1 are signing with "--"
 * both the IP and Kazemita1 are complaining there was a lack of consensus to remove the given text
 * both the IP and Kazemita1 are suggesting restoring to the “long-standing text”
 * both IP and Kazemita1 use “the fact that”
 * both IP and Kazemita1 use "your conclusion"
 * The IP’s only edit consists of making this complaint. I find it hard to believe that a random IP user suddenly became interested in that RfC, specially considering Kazemita1’s edit-warring/meat puppetry history there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Having a closer look at this, the behavioural evidence here is identical to the previous SPI (in which Kazemita1 self-admitted to sockpuppeting through different IPs while blocked): an IP posing as a different user makes a single edit in support of Kazemita1's edits. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have been abiding the law ever since my block was over and I did not edit English Wikipedia during the block period neither with IP nor with any other means. I advise everyone to take part in the discussions in the talk page rather than appealing to wiki-lawyering methods.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * here's your own statement saying you "admit it was inappropriate for me to edit using IPs while on block", so you have used IPs during your block period in the past. As you well should know, it's also not ok to use IPs pretending to be someone else while you're not blocked, which is what this SPI is about. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop playing with words. You know very well that I was talking about my 3 month block period in the above post.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1: We are not discussing what you did during your last 3 month block period, we are discussing the complaints that were made on SpinningSpark's talk page a couple of days ago where an IP and yourself (suggesting to be a different user) are making very similar objections against a closed RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Please read my earlier comments."--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have; and that still doesn't explain the similarities between the IP's edit and your own. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Given the similarities pointed out by Stefka Bulgaria, plus some other specific quirks of diction and sentence phrasing I noticed, plus the fact that 31.2.155.95 and all the IPs mentioned in the archives all geolocate to the same location, it seems clear that this is block evasion. We've been around and around on this one several times, so any vestige of AGF has long been exhausted.  Blocked and tagged the master.  No point in doing anything with this specific IP.  Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

I don’t expect checkuser to come up with a clear CU match here since socks involved in this page have been able to dodge CUs in the past. The behavioural evidence here (taken from this report by ) is, however, substantial.

First Ghazaalch relentlessly attempts to add content from a report by RAND (think tank) to the People’s Mujahedin of Iran:

etc...

Most of these attempts by Ghazaalch’s were unsuccessful, but then 4 IPs edit war to add the same RAND report to the lede:

The IP's edit summaries show they are aware of the long-term disputes in the article, and the relentless drive to put the RAND source all over the article points to Ghazaalch being behind the IPs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Those who edit "MEK" are two sides. "Pro-MEK" and "anti-MEK". Pro-MEKs side each other because they have the same view and anti-MEKs side each other for the same reason. But some People use this obvious point as an evidence against their opponents and the funny thing is that they are successful sometimes; because the admins reviewing the cases, (sometimes) do not have the time to go through the evidences thoroughly. An example of which could be testified by who was present there too. The evidences presented there were so trivial that I even did not feel the need to defend myself. But all of the sudden I was blocked. (they unblocked me soon and apologized.) But the same baseless accusation is happening again here. I am asking the admins who are working on these cases to be more careful in reviewing evidences. Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For more information see here. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on writing style, I think the IPs are all the same person (on a dynamic IP) but I do not think they are Ghazaalch. I can't argue with the fact that they're trying to add the exact same source + quote, though, which suggests to me that there is some kind of meatpuppetry going on. I've opted to protect the page. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Followup: based on some distinctive style choices in their edit summaries, I think this is actually Sockpuppet investigations/Kazemita1. Will move there. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)