Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KhndzorUtogh/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

KhndzorUtogh made an edit removing the Azerbaijani translation of a historic Russian province, it was reverted for lack of consensus. Some hours later, the IP of 217.149.166.67 made several repetitive edits starting with this one removing the Azerbaijani translation, exactly as KhndzorUtogh had done, later initiating a failed 3RR against me for reverting their disrupting edits which had no consensus. After their sockpuppet IP was banned, KhndzorUtogh continued making another edit to remove the Azerbaijani translation without consensus.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suspect KhndzorUtogh may have been using this IP (and possibly others) to suppress the Azerbaijani-character of these Russian province articles which had an ethnic Azerbaijani majority—meanwhile keeping Armenian translations in the same Russian provinces because they arbitrarily argue that an Armenian translation in the lede is somehow more appropriate than an Azerbaijani one in the same case. 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 12:33, 17 January 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

 * The IP's already blocked and CU can't connect an IP to an account, so there's nothing to do here. I left uw-login on their talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
General points and editing patterns:

1. Both users tend to revert edits by frequently citing the "lack of Extended-confirmed" status of an editor in topics relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan, even in the most dubious cases where neither politics nor ethnically charged topics are involved. Too many examples to cite, but consider these for examples:

In the first example, edit made by KhndzorUtogh, the topic is a Georgian-Armenian yogurt dish, which I think hardly falls under the Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions umbrella. In the second example, edit made by Vanezi Astghik, is on a page about a Turkish-Armenian writer and lexicographer, which again, has hardly anything to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan topics umbrella. Many more examples are to be found in the edit histories, can be found just by pressing ctrl+g and searching up "extended confirmed". Worth noting that both suspected accounts will typically proceed to place a "lack of extended-confirmed" status notification in the talk pages of the users whose edits they reverted.

2. It seems that there is a significant overlap in articles in which the users edit. This can be seen from here for example,. They have 52 overlapping edit articles, of which 11 are talk pages. More broadly speaking, both accounts edit almost exclusively in the Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics, specifically on the pages pertaining to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between the two countries.

3. The above can also be seen here where it seems there is a significant overlap in editing articles between the two users.

4. Both users move pages from one name to another a lot. When opening their edit histories, just by pressing ctrl+g on windows and then searching for "requested move" or "moved", one can see that a significant portion of the past 500 edits of each user has been concerned with either moving pages, or requesting a move for pages.

5. Users appear to have alternating spikes in editing activity, with editing activity "hopping" between the two accounts. When one account is highly active, the other account tends to be passive, and vice-versa. Consider this interaction timeline for example between the two users. One account edits intensively, then goes into hibernation, and another account starts editing actively.

6. Both users stopped editing soon after this SPI case was filed, and the period of their editing break almost completely coincided.


 * For Vanezi Astghik, the editing break was between 19th March - 6th April with only one edit in-between those dates, on 2nd April
 * For KhndzorUtogh, the editing break was between 22nd March - 5th April, with no edits at all between those dates

Linguistic and edit description similarities: 

1. Both users typically keep the edit descriptions very short, and frequently omit writing anything at all, as can be seen in the edit histories

2. There are re-occuring justifications of reverting back to "stable" version between the two users


 * Vanezi Astghik
 * KhndzorUtogh

3. Re-occuring justification of reverting or making edits on basis of "due/undue" information. Specifically focusing on the word "due", often written in combination as "due weight" or "undue weight" when referring to information.
 * Vanezi Astghik
 * KhndzorUtogh

4. Both users often rely on "consensus" as a justification for edits and reverts, and mention this in edit descriptions.
 * Vanezi Astghik
 * KhndzorUtogh

5. Both users often focus on nomenclature of whatever article or section they edit and will use that justification in their edit description as adjusting/restoring the "correct name" or "common name" or "original language name" etc.


 * Vanezi Astghik
 * KhndzorUtogh

6. Both users frequently focus on semantics and "wording" of the article or section they are editing, and mention that in the edit description.


 * Vanezi Astghik


 * KhndzorUtogh

-- Creffel (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

It is curious that 3 different users added references to a little known NGO called Lemkin Institute leaving an identical edit summary.

R.Lemkin
 * added Lemkin Institute reaction + russia role analysis + copyedit


 * copy edit the format, and added reaction from the Lemkin Institute

Phantomette
 * added Lemkin Institute reaction

Vanezi Astghik


 * added Lemkin Institute reaction

The first two accounts are known to be connected, according to SPI on R.Lemkin. Grand master  07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that on the same day with aforementioned, the arbcom also indef blocked , and later . The reason for blocks was not disclosed, but I presume that it had something to do with sock/meat puppetry. They edited the same topic area in a similar manner. All these accounts could be connected. Grand  master  09:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment in this SPI because I haven't felt the need in any way, I thought my comment awhile back on the admin page was enough since I'm not a sockpuppet and I don't know either Creffel or KhndzorUtogh. But I have some things to say since it looks like now a second user has made accusations, conveniently after an AE report against them was closed:

Firstly, as I said, I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody. In regard to the Creffel comment here, who was fishing for several admin reactions about the SPI, , , how are literal policies and common wiki lingo such as "stable", "due/undue", "consensus", "common name" and most notorious of them all, "WordinG", considered as any valid "evidence"? Isn't OP grasping at straws here? The only similarities are general stuff which means I must be a sock of like 80% of wiki users lol.

In regard to Grandmaster's rapid comment shortly after my report against them being closed in AE, a single diff from 2022 supposedly connecting me to 2 other accounts, is just ridiculous: "added X reaction" to you guessed it, Reactions section of the article was probably the standard summary of choice for me at that time (replace "X" with the source name), but I can't really recall anything specifically from almost 2 years ago. And the source in question, Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, has published numerous statements on Armenia and Artsakh, including public talks, newsletters, etc. It's not a "little known NGO" especially in its coverage of this region.

This is all I have to say really, I have one account and I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody as I first told to the admin. Vanezi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Now Grandmaster is pulling out more names like this SPI is a magician’s hat. Grandmaster similar to multiple users, edits “the same topic area”, but I don’t throw out names like Grandmaster does continually in desperate fashion, hoping to see if something sticks, this is a ridiculous behavior. Grandmaster wasn’t even commenting here and only commented shortly after they escaped the AE case I opened: given this context and the sudden burst of accusatory guesses, it shows the intentions here imo. As I said, I’m not a sockpuppet of anybody and I own one account which I’m commenting with right now. Vanezi (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment initially, but if it's being relisted again, I'll point out that Creffel hasn't provided any linguistic or edit description similarities, only general Wiki terminology, many of which Creffel has already used (consensus, stable version). And if you look at some of the diffs Creffel provided, such as the ones for "common name", many do not even contain what this user claims they do. Only one of those diffs of mine is a common name edit, these certainly are not. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I understood that was working on behavioral analysis. Maybe he may wish to comment as well.  Grand  master  19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Diff links fixed &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The checkuser results are . Closer behavioral investigation needed. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on the behavioral analysis, but can you please compare the technical data against anything you may have for Sockpuppet investigations/R.Lemkin? I'm seeing a lot of overlap and behavioral similarities with that master as well, and there's a sock which isn't stale at . The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We may need diffs or something more specific for this, but I'd value a second opinion anyway, so I'll mark the request as "relisted". &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look, but I'm not seeing any technical connection between the accounts, including Phantomette. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging, and : this case has been open a while now. I'm not seeing a connection between the accounts, but I'm also unfamiliar with the circumstances that led to the R.Linkin/ZaniGiovanni/Kevo237 blocks. Can this be closed, or are there any other rocks that need to be looked under?  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping – I'm fine with anyone closing it; all I wanted to say is that I didn't see things in the checkuser data that would have made me say "likely/confirmed" or "unlikely/unrelated". From what I saw, the checkuser tool is simply useless in the given case. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did finish the behavioral analysis, and it comes in at a hefty "it's possible". There are some similarities, but many of them like emphasis on "consensus" and "due weight" can be explained as common references to Wikipedia norms. In the absence of technical evidence showing a connection to any sockmaster, there's not enough here to justify a block at this time. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)