Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaharZIRIZ/Archive

12 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

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

 * and are technically ❌. However Malik.223 is ✅ to, who shares an editing content interest with Shayansoleimany. Haven't blocked any of them yet, as this needs a more detailed behavioural assessment. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that is also ✅ to . I will be blocking these two accounts, along with  from ' check above shortly. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the three accounts I blocked above should be broken out into a separate SPI under as we don't have confirmation on a master? I also checked them against  but they appear  to be related from a technical standpoint.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Sockpuppet investigations/Screwyafeelings and I'm closing the case now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

06 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Some very, very sticky disruptive user. He has spammed so many pages (cross wiki even, multiple languages) with his hoaxes, that I don't even know which I should all link here. I simply eventually decided to link only 4 of the IP's he used (he used/uses many more) whos conduct are typical. A range block is obviously out of the question. Regarding the linked IP's and user Farhad.2119, they are both re-instating hoax maps/material created and priorly extensively added by users Sitora.f, and Malik.223, both CU blocked puppets.-. Some plain examples here.-. Other obvious signs of him using these IP's and the added account, are the reinstatements of tons of the same edits made by Malik.223 and other CU blocked socks,---. Requesting CU for a sock sweep, as there might be some more. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , and what about blocking based on WP:DUCK? If you would like me to provide more evidence, if needed, please don't hesitate to let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Curiously,, although previously seen to be technically unrelated, recently also became active once again (and was indef blocked). I suggest bringing that account back into the investigation; editing styles are very similar. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for Farhad.2119. The technical data for the past accounts is stale, so I can't compare them. . You'll need to establish a behavioral link between the accounts (using diffs) before I can look at the account. Mike V • Talk 17:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking in the archive, I can see a shared obsession with the Tati people and language between and .  On that basis, I'm convinced Farhad.2119 is a sock, and I've indef-blocked this account.  The edits by the IP's are, IMO, too old now to justify any sort of action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)