Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan (2nd)

User:Anoshirawan

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Themfromspace (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Anoshirawan has a history of creating sockpuppets, as you can see by his previous SSP record.  A  checkuser case was filed against him as well.  Both IPs have been making certain edits like this, which is very similiar to an edit made here by User:Šāhzādé, a blocked sockpuppet of Anoshirawan.  An edit by one of the IPs here is very similiar to an edit by the blocked puppet here.  In addition, all of the users above seem to be single-purpose accounts designed to make the same NPOV racial alterations to articles involving Afghanistan (eg: Afgahni→Tajik).


 * Comments

I am neither Anoshiwan nor Sahzade. Please don´t grap on me. Thank you and best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.195.172 (talk • contribs) January 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by EdJohnston
 * has been indef-blocked since May, 2008. The question is, are the above IPs actually his socks? Anoshirawan was very well-known on the noticeboards; this search finds everywhere he is mentioned in Wikipedia space. Anoshirawan seems to have been an ethnic edit warrior of a specific persuasion, and the work of the above IPs should be reviewed for its similarly to Anosh's well-known views. Here are the major hits for Anoshirawan in past noticeboard discussions:


 * Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive54
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive56


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304
 * Suspected sock puppets/Archive/October 2007
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive57
 * Suspected sock puppets/Archive/December 2007
 * Suspected sock puppets/khampalak
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Anoshirawan
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Khampalak


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417
 * Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik (mentions Tajik, not Anosh)


 * Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan
 * Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan (2nd) [THIS REPORT]
 * EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On one of these noticeboards, an editor theorizes that Anoshirawan is a certain blogger who writes about Afghan topics. In the Tajik RFCU, Thatcher says that Anoshirawan was in the USA as of May, 2008. The two IPs listed in this report are both located in Germany, so they can't be Anosh unless he has moved. We do know that Anosh had a bunch of colleagues in other countries who echoed his views. Maybe it is time to look them up too. There are some 88.68.*.* IPs listed in WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik.
 * Note that himself was rehabilitated by Arbcom in September, 2008 and is no longer blocked. Poor Man's Checkuser thinks that Tajik is located in a certain European country. In Tajik's RFCU, it is written that the 88.68 IPs that were listed in the CU request are actually User:Šāhzādé, who has since been blocked as a sock of Anosh.
 * If the above two IPs can be shown to be nothing but racial POV-warriors they may qualify to be blocked under other policies. The advantage of a CU is that they could find more socks if they agree to do a check. However CUs don't like to confirm IPs so it is not yet clear how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Kingturtle said: "I have not found any particular evidence that solidly links the two IPs with Šāhzādé or Anoshirawan. I only have suspicions."


 * Conclusions
 * I have blocked the two IPs above three months each anon-only for disruptive editing, 'POV warring on ethnic identity of Pashtuns and Tajiks.' This leaves the sock question open, but factors in favor of this outcome are (a) the close resemblance to the edit style of Anoshirawan, (b) the rather short edit histories giving little behavioral data to work with, (c) the lack of socially-useful edits from either one. You may ask whether all 88.68 IPs that war against the Pashtun ancestry of biographical figures should be blocked as socks. I would suggest that a verdict of disruptive editing will remain attractive until they start to show respect for neutrality and good evidence. Unless there are further comments, it may be time to close this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)