Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SednaXV/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Seems like SednaXV is a sock of Artoxx, used only for engaging in edit warning. There are few similarities:
 * 1) Both are writting mainly about Azerbaijan-related articles.
 * 2) Both are engaging in edit wars on Women in Iran and Hijab by country, only by reverting my edits with false accusations (and ignoring talks).
 * 3) Both are leading chase against me on various user pages (compare:  and ). Snitching text and spacing is almost identical. MehrdadFR (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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


 * I'm one of the editors who was contacted. It's clear canvassing, and very odd since I am not an admin and I have no recent involvement with these articles that I remember. Meters (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a sockpuppet of User:SednaXV. I became aware of User:MehrdadFR (after I visited User:LouisAragon about another unrelated categorization issue) and watched User:MehrdadFR's deliberate POV agenda and edit wars with User:SednaXV, in the articles such as Women in Iran and Hijab by country, and I followed both of these users' editions.


 * User:MehrdadFR indeed has a strong political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.


 * That is why I alerted most of these users (that User:SednaXV did before me) about the POV pushing and deletions of User:MehrdadFR to other user such as User:Meters (who I wrongly assumed was aware or involved), User:Vegemeister, User:Mr. Granger, User talk:Rupert loup and User:LouisAragon.


 * Here is a message of User:LouisAragon to User:Vegemeister in his or her talkpage about User:MehrdadFR's POV agenda:


 * «Hi,
 * This user is a SPA user with a sole purpose (agenda, POV), namely to glorify anything that the Islamic Republic of Iran proclaims (verifiably a theocratic regime), and to spread blatant misinformation, cross-article, backed up by carefully nitpicked "sources" that suit his POV. Furthermore, he has a strong WP:OWN mentality as well, which is typical for "representatives" that come here on Wikipedia to push for a certain stance. I checked the scale of the disruption recently, and this is actually massive. Arbcom will be needed here. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)»


 * I think this message about User:MehrdadFR is more than enough. I rest my case. -Artoxx (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar editing interests. Asked for reopening of old investigation of User:MehrdadFR after MehrdadFR opened this SPI against SednaXV and CU confirmed Artoxx. Rupert loup was one of the many editors canvassed by these two editors to go after MehrdadFR. He has now removed these from his talk page. Rupert loup is now canvassing [notifying changed per discussion in comment section ] multiple editors about MehrdadFR      with language which is very similar similarly [ changed per comment section discussion ] to the canvassing by the already blocked accounts.

Note that Rupert Loup is the older account and should be listed as the master if this is confirmed to be socking. Meters (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm imforming about the discussion which other users participated before and had enconters with MehrdadFR, is this against any rule? I was interested in Islamic subjects when I met MehrdadFR who has a COI with Iran, I don't remember the date but was SednaXV who left a message in my talk page and I recommended this but soon he was banned. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also you seem very fast in report me but nobody do nothing about an user that is warring and has a clear COI and POV. I'm wondering my self about that. I hope that an admin shows up and can clarify this. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rupert loup was one of the many editors canvassed by these two editors to go after MehrdadFR" How the hell I'm doing anything to that users go against MehrdadFR? I'm only asking for opinions of users that already were involved, their expirience with MehrdadFR doesn't matters? I think that you have something against me because before you tried to censor me. If not take that back Meters, thank you. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, the same that MehrdadFR did in his talk page, why they don't want that this users express their opinions? Rupert Loup (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And notice the next two edits on those pages where I restored the edits and apologized for having accidentally removed them . I was cutting and pasting from the history page to add diffs to this SPI and I accidentally deleted them. I noticed one removal as soon as I did it and immediately restored it, and the second one I found a few minutes later when I was adding the link to this SPI. Meters (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that you did that. But you tried and then take it back. Very strange given your statement. According with WP:CAN

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. '''However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.''' I did nothing to influence the opinion of this users. So take back that because you are misrepresenting me and I will take as a personal attack Meters. I want to have good faith but you are make it very difficult. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Your notifications of the other editors do not qualify as canvassing. I'll modify my statement, but I stand by the SPI. And if you want to raise WP:AGF perhaps you could explain why you raised the accidental removals if you already knew that I had apologized and restored them minutes later? If you think I've done soemthing wrong then raise it on the appropriate board, not at SPI. Meters (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because is strange given the statements, and I had being reported along with others so swiftly and MehrdadFR, who is making disruptives edits since a time ago, is still editing. But I will asume good faith. Now on the messages, I use chain messages because it's more easy. A lot of users do that. I don't see how that explain that I'm doing sockpuppetry. English is not my main language and our style is very different. I am who was being contacted by this user, I don't care about the other articles but the article when the edit war took place is of my interest. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't see terribly compelling evidence of sockpuppetry here; a CU check was not requested and I would not endorse based on what's here, so I am closing this. If I may say so, 's pulling of a five-month-old thread from an archive the day after the user filed an accurate SPI is plainly retaliatory, but not in a way that reads sockpuppet to me - the fact that Rupert loup was canvassed by the socking editor is a plausible explanation for why they turned up there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)