Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisAragon/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please note that it is  Confirmed that User:Beh-nam is not related to this account.


LouisAragon

04 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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 [[1]]. 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 [[2]] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lagoo sab . LouisAragon apparantly had a dispute with him days before this on one of his accounts [[3]] after which this user/IP reported him [[4]],[[5]]

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 [[6]] and of Tajik ethnicity more precisely [[7]] [[8]] 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. [[9]] [[10]] 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 [[11]] yet LouisAragon had no problem inserting Afghanistan into South Asia [[12]] [[13]]

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: [[14]],[[15]],[[16]],[[17]],[[18]], [[19]]

LouisAragon:[[20]], [[21]], [[22]]

IP: 94.210.203.230 [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], [[26]], [[27]], [[28]], [[29]], [[30]], [[31]], [[32]],

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. [[33]]. 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. [[34]][[35]]

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. [[36]] 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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 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)[reply]

10 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Had reverted the changes that were made by 94.210.203.230 on these pages. Now Behnam is recovering them.

94.210.203.230,[37](categories)-[38]-[39]-[40] and these IPs have altered these pages as well.[41](categories too)-[42]-[43]-[44] Bladesmulti (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have added two IPs which appeared on my talk page, insisting I revert user:Interfase's edits.[45][46] The IPs geolocate to Netherlands, so its a possibility? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • There is currently information with the Arbitration Committee where this is being looked into. Placing on hold to till the conclusion of events. If need be, any administrator can still block anything listed if it is being disruptive. Do not block for sockpuppetry at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've been asked to move the case and remove it from hold by Dougweller. Since the edits are roughly 3 weeks ago and originate from a mobile provider, any blocks now won't serve a purpose. Mike V • Talk 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may be 2 accounts to add. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I've moved it back to hold. Mike V • Talk 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added 3 more. These are actually CU confirmed by another CU. I'll check for behavior later. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: If they're confirmed, is there any reason not to block them now?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: The evidence is sufficient to block, and LouisAragon confirms that these accounts are his. I'll block them as CU confirmed, will you tag and close this please. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as requested. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 July 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


2A03:2880:3010:3FF7:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I've copied this from Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisAragon where it was posted by 2A03:2880:3010:3FF7:FACE:B00C:0:1 with a semiprotected edit request (which is how I became aware of it). The anonymous user provided no evidence at all. This should be summarily closed, but as I'm not an SPI clerk I don't think I should just remove it myself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 August 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


2000.dll (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
  • User:LouisAragon writes: "Removed nationalist PoV bogus. there was no such thing as 'Afghanistan' or any sort of 'Afghan' identity until the 18th century." [47] (emphasis added). See also [48], [49], [50], [51].
  • Human10.0 writes, in pertinent part: "Arranged different PoVs in separate paragraphs..." [52] (emphasis added).
  • 94.210.203.230 writes: "Very South Asian wishful type of PoV written. Removed all bogus claims and statements without proper sources" [53] (emphasis added).

The above reported names (and IP) also write the word "lede" the same way, and also focus on the usage of the word "bogus". They edit the same pages similarly, and share the same ideology, attitude, mentality, and knowledge.

Admin Doug Weller had long warned LouisAragon that he, inter alia, "1. Disclose[s] all [his] accounts... 2. Agree[s] to a one-account restriction." [54] It appears that he violated the terms of his appeal at WP:ARBCOM. DUCK is not enough, a CU should be done to determine how many socks are used. Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • After LouisAragon was blocked on Nov. 11, 2014, [55] his sleeper Hurvashtahumvata888 became active and began taking over LouisAragon's discussion. Both expressed identical view about Afghanistan's geographic location. [56], [57]. LouisAragon and Hurvashtahumvata888 edited Pashtuns on June 15, 2015 [58], and now at Stoning, Human10.0 and LouisAragon are doing the same.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • @Krzyhorse22: The small amount of evidence you've presented is not at all persuasive. PoV. Even assuming that's so unusual as to provide behavioral evidence, you've presented no diff for Hurvashtahumvata888. Lede. Although you've presented no diffs, that's a common spelling. As for the rest, no diffs at all. You need to present better evidence, or I'll decline this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LouisAragon/Archive&oldid=1079619743"