Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/ArmanAfifeh

User:Mojtaba2361
User:Mojtaba2361 is definitely not ArmanAfifeh. No matter what your CU data say (which may be very skewed in Iran), these are different people. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant report in the archive is Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive. What evidence do you have to suggest this?, who according to the archives has a strong behavioral connection to Mojtaba2361, is confirmed to ArmanAfifeh. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mojtaba2361 was an established user of fawiki (30K+ edits). I had many discussions with him on fawiki (and also Commons). Mojtaba2361 was involved in undisclosed paid editing, so he deservedly got blocked on fawiki and enwiki indefinitely. I sent multiple emails to the enwiki CU team and User:CaptainEek finally took action. I will forward my own emails to you. Mojtaba2361 was deceived by ArmanAfifeh. In fact, he was a victim of ArmanAfifeh. While the undisclosed paid editing by Mojtaba2361 should be dealt with, it is unfair to associate him with the LTA ArmanAfifeh.
 * The behavioural dissimilarities of these people (Mojtaba2361 and ArmanAfifeh) are best manifested when they write in Persian. No offence, but ArmanAfifeh writes casually and frivolously; he has many typos even in the most basic Persian words. Whereas Mojtaba2361 is a serious person and at least does not have silly spelling mistakes.
 * Recently, an admin of Persian Wikipedia got surprised when he became aware that enwiki has recognised Mojtaba2361 as a sock of ArmanAfifeh and fawiki has unfortunately followed suit. User:Jeeputer said that he could easily identify ArmanAfifeh's socks but he did not see Mojtaba2361 similar to ArmanAfifeh. User:Ahmad252 was also suspicious if I recall correctly. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was, and still am. It is not just that they behave rather differently, it is also about the CU results. I did send an email explaining this in detail to CaptainEek back then, but I did not receive a response. Here is a summary: Shortly after Mojtaba2361 was blocked for UPE on Persian Wikipedia on 24 December, there was a "discussion ban" (a ban from all "discussion" spaces) proposal for 4nn1l2, which was overwhelmingly rejected. 4nn1l2 was one of those involved in reviewing the UPE evidence and had disclosed this publicly; Mojtaba2361 knew about this and, prior to his block, had once attacked 4nn1l2 for publicly supporting a UPE-related block that was later lifted (and was reinstated afterwards). Interestingly, an unregistered editor, who did not appear to be using an open proxy, tried to support the proposal and also attack 4nn1l2 in their comment. However, AbuseFilter blocked them, and when I was reviewing AbuseFilter blocks later, I noticed that their writing style was very similar to that of Mojtaba2361, and they were well familiar with the history of Persian Wikipedia. I discussed this privately with an experienced fawiki user, and they said that this IP editor was "probably" Mojtaba2361. Now, this IP's address was similar to some of the ones used by ArmanAfifeh, and since ArmanAfifeh changes his IP frequently, I think even "Confirmed" (and not "Likely") results are probably based on IP ranges, not IP addresses. Assuming that Mojtaba2361 was in fact behind the edit, which is, in my opinion, very likely, this can explain why CU results suggested a technical similarity between the two. I suspect that some similarities in their behavior, in addition to a rather weak technical link, might have led to a misunderstanding. Ahmadtalk 08:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually, i can identify either socks of ArmanAfifeh and Mojtaba2361. Mojtaba was a tough user; i have had at least 300KBs of discussion with him. I know what he looks for and also am familiar with his type of wording (in Persian). I also reported many socks of AA before i became an admin as i know what he intends to do by using sockpuppets (not only his spelling mistakes). All the socks i identified got blocked by User:Ladsgroup based on CU data.
 * I don't know what behavioral connection Sobherooja had with Mojtaba. But you need to know that editing own common.js as first contribution to enwiki is normal for fawiki users (as i also did in my 6th edit here too), because ToFawiki is a tool to translate articles present on enwiki. Also, creating BLPs for athletes is the most popular field of activity on fawiki, for both paid and experienced, trusted editors. I do not agree with letting Mojtaba2361 get back to editing on Wikipedia (at least on Persian version), but i believe that the result of the case should be reviewed. Jeeputer (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Just to make things clear, this discussion is not about letting Mojtaba2361 back to editing on either English or Persian Wikipdia. He deservedly got blocked on both projects, and in order to edit again, he should make unblock requests which may be declined. This discussion is only about disassociating Mojtaba2361 from ArmanAfifeh. In other words, this discussion is only about these specific edits. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with 4nn1l2, G5ing all articles (including featured articles and lists) created by Mojtaba2361 is being discussed in fawiki and results depend on this case being reviewed. Jeeputer (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just want to make sure that I have exhausted every method available to me to rectify this error. Do you have anything to add to this discussion? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry is also grounds for a CU block. If Mojtaba would like to expound on that story he can in an unblock request of his own. But I fail to see why it's worth admin time on this if the end result is he will still be blocked. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mojtaba2361 has been locked and cannot even log in to their account. That's why they emailed me. They have been locked because they have wrongly been identified as ArmanAfifeh on the English Wikipedia. They told me they would like to contribute to Commons and I don't see why they can't do that. Furthermore, I don't think meatpuppetry has happened here. I sent you some emails some months ago and explained in detail how Mojtaba2361 had been deceived by ArmanAfifeh. I even translated all the screenshots into English for you. Mojtaba2361 was just doing their best to earn some money through Wikipedia. I know this is a violation of policies, but it does not amount to the long-term abuses done by ArmanAfifeh. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , if they can email you they can file an unblock request on WP:UTRS or email ArbCom. I'll not that the block is NOT a CheckUser block, its just a block for undisclosed paid editing. I was not the one that connected them to ArmenAfifeh, and agree that the link is probably tenuous. But Mojtaba has still failed to address the actual reason for the block: paid editing, and will thus remain blocked until they deal with that appropriately. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is true and I convey this information to them. But indeed their blockage is none of my business and I don't want to be passionate about it. I don't care if they remain blocked indefinitely or not. The only thing that concerns me in this story is connecting them to ArmanAfifeh. In other words, if is okay with undoing   this edit and disconnecting Mojtaba2361 from ArmanAfifeh, then we're done here. By doing that, I think justice has been served. Identifying Mojtaba2361 as a sock of ArmanAfifeh has had at least three unfortunate consequences so far: 1) Mojtaba's articles have all been deleted per G5; 2) Some of Mojatab's "enemies" at fawiki have tried to get his articles deleted there too and nothing stops them from trying to do that again and again; 3) They have been locked globally and they cannot even contribute to projects where undisclosed paid editing is allowed per policy such as Commons (c:Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy). Regarding the second point, you may say that fawiki is an independent project and is not related to enwiki, but fawiki being fawiki always does strange things. In fact that project does not have any policies of its own and follows enwiki in almost every matter. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging to the discussion and  as they are checkusers who have given checkuser results and/or behavioral analysis to link Mojtaba2361 to socks of ArmanAfifeh. Mz7 requested that I move the case (as well as checking the CU data) and Oshwah ran checkuser on the accounts.
 * I would note that this case has seen admins / CUs / clerks invoke WP:DENY and not use tags, however, in cases of long established users who are determined to be sockpuppets tags are useful for those who want to find out why the user is blocked. In the latest report, said that tags really should be used for this case as they are not wanting recognition (so WP:DENY doesn't apply to this case). As such these tags should stay if the link to ArmanAfifeh is found to be strong enough. The evidence from CU checks documented onwiki is as follows:
 * is confirmed to per ArmanAfifeh per Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive
 * is likely to VsDFRT per Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive
 * appears to be confirmed to a number of (unnamed in the report) ArmanAfifeh sockpuppet accounts per Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive
 * As such the CU evidence concludes that Mojtaba2361 is likely through VsDFRT to ArmanAfifeh. Another checkuser, Mz7, then made a "strong behavioral link" between Sobherooja and Mojtaba2361, while noting that Sobherooja appears to be confirmed to several ArmanAfifeh sockpuppets. As such there is two separate routes that two different checkusers have taken to link these users using checkuser data and behavioral analysis. As such I am not going to be removing these tags without input from these two checkusers as to whether these links are not strong enough to consider Mojtaba2361 as a sockpuppet. I've not had a chance to review the behavioral evidence again, but will do soon. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 08:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sobherooja has only a couple of edits, and it's hard to imagine how someone sees behavioral similarities between Mojtaba and Sobherooja. Sobherooja is without any doubt ArmanAfifeh himself, trying to game the system and confuse CUs. Mojtaba was blocked at 01:29, 12 January 2021 and Sobherooja, created one day ago, started to muddy the waters and impersonate Mojtaba and confuse CUs. The only tenable evidence enwiki has against Mojtaba2361 is the CU results about VsDFRT, and let's not forget that the CU only said they were likely to be the same person. Considering the dire condition of Internet in Iran, it is not unwise to have doubts about its accuracy and precision. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We have several years worth of technical data on ArmanAfifeh on the private wiki, all of it remarkably consistent. Three checkusers reviewed the report on Mojtaba2361 and none expressed a doubt that they were connected to ArmanAfifeh; I'm inclined to believe we don't have any good reason to revisit their conclusions eight months later in the absence of an appeal. In any case, 4nn1l2, you described above that Mojtaba2361 was working with ArmanAfifeh in their long-term undisclosed paid editing operation, and so whatever eventually happened with that relationship (they were "deceived", as you say), the person using that account violated an office policy which this community considers one of its most important. Furthermore, English Wikipedia has long-established precedent that two users working together are considered to be one person for the purposes of enforcement (see Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy). Therefore, Mojtaba2361 is a sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. What Persian Wikipedia decides to do with this information is frankly not English Wikipedia's concern. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was the person who reported Mojtaba2361 to paid-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org and later to the English Wikipedia CU team in the first place. After one month of sending multiple emails and receiving no responses, Mojtaba2361 was finally blocked by CaptainEek. I can forward you all the emails too if need be. But you can probably find them in functionaries-en@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org under the title "Undisclosed paid editor: Mojtaba2361". Mojtaba2361 was not working with ArmanAfifeh. ArmanAfifeh impersonated a customer (Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo) and Mojtaba2361 thought that he was working with a real customer (a footbal player in the real world). Later ArmanAfifeh leaked all those messages and that's how we have evidence against Mojataba's UPE (we have other, more credible evidence too). Put simply, Mojataba was set up by ArmanAfifeh. ArmanAfifeh is a gameplayer. He impersonates people, he sets up users, he will laugh at all of us loudly if he knows that we are having this discussion and he will enjoy it... Sobherooja is definitely another sock by ArmanAfifeh trying to impersonate Mojtaba2361 and get him re-blocked due to socking as well as UPE. Mojtaba2361 and ArmanAfifeh were both fawiki users and there was bad blood between them. I may well accept that despite my efforts, I couldn't rectify this error and change the situation, but let me respectfully not accept that Mojtaba2361 is a sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how any of this changes the situation. An editor who can be "tricked" into taking paid editing jobs in direct violation of the website's terms of use is no different from any other editor who doesn't disclose their paid editing activities, and this is behaviour we are highly motivated to stop. It really doesn't matter even one little bit whether the person on the other end of that arrangement was the actual person or an LTA trying to fool them (and for what purpose?), the fact is that Mojtaba intended to accept the job, and to create an article without following the TOU. Along with that whole thing which would have them blocked anyway, there is also strong behavioural and technical evidence that they're the same person as ArmanAfifeh, and per the arbitration decision I referred to earlier, they are as good as sockpuppets. I don't see any good reason to spend energy to help this person, to be blunt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. Nobody is questioning UPE, but only connecting them to an LTA. The phrase "I took a look at the CU data, and it's quite messy," by Mz7 attracted my attention now. It shows that there are not strong technical evidence. The behavioural similarities cannot be taken serious at all, because I can only see behavioural dissimilarities.
 * "and for what purpose?" interesting question. I already explained in detail in my emails months ago that this was assignment of contract. Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo indeed paid ArmanAfifeh to make an article for him in Wikipedia. When ArmanAfifeh understood that he could not do it himself, he tried to lure Mojtaba2361 to do that instead. ArmanAfifeh pretended to be Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo and tricked Mojtaba2361.
 * Enough for me. You are not going to change your mind, no matter how much we discuss here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
It has been 7 months since I made the decision to connect Mojtaba2361 to ArmanAfifeh, so I had to do a lot of refreshing my memory. Having looked back at my personal notes on the case, as well as what data remains from the investigation (it looks like there is some data still on CU wiki ), I do think it is plausible that I erred in linking Mojtaba2361 to ArmanAfifeh. The technical evidence is indeed quite messy, and I do not think it conclusively demonstrates that Mojtaba2361 is an ArmanAfifeh sock (importantly, this is not a guarantee that they aren't socks either).

We turn then to behavior. When I stated in February that the behavioral evidence connecting Mojtaba2361 and Sobherooja seems quite strong, I believe it was because It seems plausible that both of these are mere coincidences, particularly the one with the common.js script, which Jeeputer has convincingly pointed out is common for fawiki users in their first edits (e.g. ). I don't think I was aware of this information about the common.js script at the time. Additionally, most ArmanAfifeh socks are throwaway accounts with less than 100 edits, but Mojtaba2361 was a relatively established user with 3000+ edits to enwiki.
 * 1) Sobherooja's only edits were to create a draft about an obscure subject that Mojtaba2361 had also created a draft for (see the deleted history of Draft:Ali Asghar Asiabari; compare  to ).
 * 2) Sobherooja's first edit was to create User:Sobherooja/common.js with a script that Mojtaba2361 also had: User:Mojtaba2361/common.js.

As far as what I think should be done now, I don't have any loud objections to removing the sockpuppet tag on User:Mojtaba2361—Mojtaba2361 would remain blocked on enwiki for UPE, but this would clarify that Mojtaba2361 is not the same user as ArmanAfifeh. I express no view on whether the global lock on Mojtaba2361 should be lifted—honestly, because Mojtaba2361 had indefinite blocks on two large wikis, it seems like a global lock could have been justified for "crosswiki abuse" even without the suspected connection to ArmanAfifeh. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, when I blocked I felt the CU data tenuous, so made my original block merely for UPE, as I had clear and convincing evidence. No objections to lifting the SPI tag. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅: I've gone ahead and boldly removed the sock tag. The account will remain blocked and globally locked unless the user successfully appeals those restrictions. I believe this should resolve the issues from an enwiki standpoint. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just remembered there is the issue of all the articles created by Mojtaba2361 that were deleted under WP:G5. I am actually disinclined to restore those articles in mainspace immediately because the articles may have COI issues from the undisclosed paid editing, and given the volume of pages involved, auditing each of them for quality is community time that would not be well spent. If any editor wishes independently to help work on specific articles that Mojtaba2361 previously created, they could contact me or the deleting administrator for a copy of the deleted content (e.g. we could restore the content in draft space for more work). Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)