Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 4 January 2015

Beh-nam

Beh-nam (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Suspected sock puppets/Beh-nam
• Suspected sock puppets/Beh-nam (2nd)

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam

03 January 2015

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Issac Watson (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 50.65.101.8 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Issac Watson was just created for praising one of his socks(94.210.203.230) changes-, This was a prefect edit, just like 50.65.101.8, This is a perfect edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I had thought that 84.241.200.207 is him, but the IP told he was unaware of recovering banned editors contributions. I just thought of leaving it out, will see if the IP recovers any of his contributions again.

Beh-nam seems to have stated that he comes from Canada.

Even in previous reports, we have seen that CU results were inconclusive and socks were blocked due to their behavioral match. There is possibility that the user has a good collection of various IP addresses. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, 84.241 is indeed him, now there's no 2nd opinion. He just recovered the edits of 94.210 on Iranians in Pakistan with 84.241.192.196 and also on Tehran. Also 84.241.210.151 and 84.241.194.174. IP is dynamic. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Another?(89.146.46.242} it is also from Netherlands and it is an obvious duck IP, otherwise who else will make a false claim that this citation doesn't mention Iranians. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing Callanecc, I read the given link, yes they are all made by a Beh-nam/94.210. Seems like these changes were removed by other person- for exactly same reasons. Beh-nam/94.210 is specifically vandalizing the articles of Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey. Right after knowing that it becomes easier to acknowledge that it is indeed him. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I think that it shouldn't be removed as you haven't removed the below comments of this sock, but it would be better if we hat each of them and tag the templates with <nowiki> </nowiki>. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. My opinion as a bypasser. I was there back in the day then when Beh-nam was being blocked every few days on his socks. Beh-nam is a Canadian based user. 84 and 94 are Netherlands based users. Besides, so far the only edits on 84 are on Iranian related articles, and if you take another look, his reversion on the Iranians in Pakistan article was completely rightful as they are falsification of the sources (they dont mention a thing about the added statement given in the article) Beh-nam was a self admitted Afghan from Canada who hated South Asians and solely commented on South Asian related articles. I dont see how, knowing this, he can be in any way connected to these IPs. Take a look at the content of the edits they made and Beh-nams. 89.146.46.242 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why you are obsessed with Turks like Beh-nam? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined. @Bladesmulti: The CU request is not possible as any data is stale. In addition, I'm puzzled by the interplay here. As you know, I blocked User:94.210.203.230 for six months, a known IP address used by the master (see archives). FWIW, 94 geolocates to the Netherlands. You didn't list 84.241.200.27 (talk · contribs · count) who reinistated three of 94's edits and who also geolocates to the Netherlands. The IP you did list (50) made only one edit at the Achaemenid Empire article, and it was not to reinstate 94's edit. It was obovious vandalism. Isaac Watson appears to endorse 50's edit, but at the same time reinstates 94's edit. 50 geolocates to Canada, but I'm not sure if that's where the person is located based on certain characteristics also described at geolocate. The named account has made only the two edits. I'm inclined to block based on duck, simply because they reinstated 94's edits on two pages and the timing coming right on the heels of my blocking 94. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though, based on my comments. At this point at least the disruption is minimal (compared to 94, for example).--Bbb23 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I agree that the IPs are socks. However, they are using wireless services that make it easy for them to hop around. To block just those three IPs, a range block (84.241.192.0/19) would affect 8,192 users. I'd like some input on the best way to handle this from Callanecc, who is more experienced in these matters. Thanks for the update.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that 89.146.46.242 (talk · contribs · count) is using a Dutch webhost. They are in a different range from the 84 series, obviously. For the moment, I'm not blocking them until Callanecc has a chance to respond. However, if they disrupt articles, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

89.146.46.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) looks like a webhost to me as well so I've blocked it. Regarding the /19 have a look at the contrib list here and check how many are Beh-nam and hence collateral (doesn't look to bad to me but will need the anonblock or rangeblock templates (in addition to a link here) as it is being used by others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I don't see a problem with the /19 list (took a long time to respond, though). All the articles I believe are related to Beh-nam's interests and why would someone using a Dutch web host edit those articles? As for the templates, I need to know how we document and what we document as I have little experience in this. Thanks.

Please see the case below and my comment. Should I let it go to archives or should I delete it? On the one hand, I don't like the archive being cluttered by these rambling arguments by Beh-nam, but, on the other hand, it serves to reinforce the findings more than any analysis we could write ourselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

04 January 2015

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• LouisAragon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 94.210.203.230 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

I would like to see a direct CheckUser on above mentioned user and IP. If he really is a sockpuppet of Beh-nam including the IP there should be no problem blocking them indefinetely. The User is blocked based on suspicion of being a sockpuppet of Beh-nam and the IP as well, but there has never a direct investigation been made on the user. I think the blocking admin might have jumped the gun over this one, but a CU could find that out once and for all. LouisAragon received a ban following ]. I've been following this particular case namely for a while, so I tried to dig up some archives on both LouisAragons, Beh-nams, and IP 94s pages;

Apparantly user LouisAragons ban happened following an inconclusive CheckUser after the patrolling moderator decided to block all listed Users/IP's as the editing conduct was unacceptably poor. The 94 IP got blocked in August ] due to being a no-brainer, as the reason listed. What is interesting to note is that the IP that made all the socking allegations at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam including the listing of LouisAragons name and IP 94, was Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab who edited from PTCL 39, 119 and 182 IP ranges, and uses similar language (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Lagoo sab . LouisAragon apparantly had a dispute with him days before this on one of his accounts ] after which this user/IP reported him ],]

I think we could get rid of both the IP and LouisAragon indefinetely if we indeed prove that he is a confirmed (and not a suspected one) of Beh-nam by a CheckUser as both are still blocked for being suspected sockpuppets.

Beh-nam, on top of what his IP locations showed, had admitted several times that he was Canadian and Afghan ] and of Tajik ethnicity more precisely ] ] LouisAragon admitted several times that he lived in Netherlands (Which also his IP showed) and that he was of ethnic Russian, Caucasian, and Iranian background. ] ] IP 94 was also from the Netherlands and from about the same geolocation.

Beh-nam hated the fact that Afghanistan was included in South Asia and tried to disassociate it from it ] yet LouisAragon had no problem inserting Afghanistan into South Asia ] ]

Beh-nam also solely commented on articles related to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajiks, South Asia while LouisAragon/94 edited on many, many different type of subjects and articles as well such as the Caucasus, Iran, Georgia, Armenia, and Europe as we can see, related to his ancestry and interests as shown on his user page.

Beh-nam: ],],],],], ]

LouisAragon:], ], ]

IP: 94.210.203.230 ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],

Apparantly IP 94 and user "Bladesmulti" had an argue as of recently as well after which apparently IP 94/LouisAragon didn't want to agree with him based on the reliablity of some source provided (despite it was a reliable source given by user Bladesmulti), which afterwards user "Bladesmutti" decided to bring 94/LouisAragon to Bbb23 to get him banned. ]. User Bladesmulti subsequently started a massive reverting spree to remove all edits ever made by IP 94, sometimes just blanketing the whole pages as a result. ]]

If anything, in my opinion, 94 is notihng more than the personal IP of LouisAragon while Beh-nam is completely unrelated to both of them and LouisAragon/94 were linked to them due to being there at the wrong moment and at the wrong time (disputes with users, first and foremost with ip 39 months ago). On top of the fact that 94 and LouisAragon are both helping each other, having about the same geolocation, the same editing style, and LouisAragon even signs comments written by 94 as seen here. ] I can say this with pretty much conviction. However, a CheckUser can confirm the story and get this solved once and for all. 94.210.208.145 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (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

 Clerk note: I've blocked 94.210.208.145 for six months as yet another IP sock. I'm tempted to delete this case but for the moment am simply closing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• SPI cases with the masters user talk page redirecting elsewhere
• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases declined for checkuser by clerk
• SPI cases awaiting archive