Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hetoum I

Hetoum I ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date September 27 2009, 08:17 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


It is also possible that the following accounts also belong to Hetoum:

Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including 1rv per week limitation, by Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs): [1]

However Hetoum I was evading his parole under various IPs, for which he was repeatedly blocked. See his block log. He increased his disruption recently, as IP 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), was going around and reverting the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan ( talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam ( talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy ( talk · contribs)), which suggests that he coordinates his activity with other banned users. Previously 216.165.12.84 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I ( talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: [2] [3], which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I.

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai ( talk · contribs): [4]. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to the mass killing of Azerbaijanis in Khojaly massacre. For this edit the IP was blocked for 1 year.

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai ( talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

  • 10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai) [5]

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary [6] is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person.

He returned as 128.122.90.186 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week for incivility, shortened to 31 hours. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Right now edit warring across multiple articles is continued by 216.165.33.90 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), also from NY University.

And this is from the talk of Hetoum's previous user account: [7] [8] He was engaged in vandalism from his very first steps in Wikipedia.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Grand master 08:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk endorsed on the face of it, almost too obvious to warrant CU attention, but the prolific nature of the apparent socking warrants CU attention to seek any underlying IP addresses. Mayalld ( talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Stale for all the accounts. Brandon ( talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

information Administrator note 216.165.33.0/25 rangeblocked for 2 weeks for disruption and sock puppetry. Given the other stale, abandoned, and otherwise already-blocked accounts, I cannot see any other administrative action needed here. MuZemike 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think an admin needs to make a judgment whether Hetoum I is the sockmaster. Grand master 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Right. I did overlook the sockmaster again. After reading the RFAR, I have blocked User:Hetoum I for 6 months for sock puppetry and violation of ArbCom restrictions (note that the previous enforcement remedies are no longer in effect, and that the mandatory "one-year-block" is no longer prescribed after the 5th block. However, I do feel 6 months is sufficient here. MuZemike 05:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 15 2010, 07:11 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

CaptainGio ( talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA and another sock of the banned user Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). His contribs consist only of edit warring on the page Khanate of Erevan‎. This page is regularly being reverted by socks of Hetoum to almost the same version. Previously it was reverted by Brunotheborat ( talk · contribs), Fazeri ( talk · contribs), Plainsriver ( talk · contribs), and 216.165.33.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), all socks of Hetoum. Please see this: [9]. After the article was semi-protected for a long period, edit warring stopped. Now that the protection expired, the edit war resumed. Hetoum is an indef banned user, who used a large army of socks and IPs to edit war on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, which have been a subject to a number of arbitration cases. Hetoum normally edits from IPs that point to NY University. I included in this request some of his recent IPs, and there are more IPs used by Hetoum in the archive of this case. Maybe this does not even need a CU, as CaptainGio is an obvious SPA, and an admin can make a call, but if not, then please run a check. Grand master 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not sure if it is regular practice to accuse someone of sockpuppeting when you do not agree with their edits, but it seems rediculous. I editted a page with cited information and left comments under the talk section. The opposing arguments have yet to provide any citation, and only self-conflicting arguments. My edit was reverted without a single comment to validity of content on talk page with abusive summary and personal attack that being a sock is not OK. I would like this use to apologize to me, and rectify the situation. CaptainGio ( talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Then how come that your very first edit was this revert of the article to this version by Hetoum? Grand master 09:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Please stop harassing me. It is very unpleasant, how would you like that to be done to you? I also editted Sayat Nova under a different account name, so you may want to add both names under me, but again, I think this checkuser will clear me. CaptainGio ( talk) 17:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed – The relevant IP range that Hetoum I has used in the past was 216.165.33.0/25. – MuZemike 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Likely. The two listed sockpuppets are definitely Captain Gio's (not that he's making any bones about that). Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How about the IP 67.85.7.103? It is mass reverting pages now, in the style of Hetoum. Grand master 07:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I believe that IP is autoblocked right now. Mackensen, any possibility of a hardblock on 216.165.33.0/25? – MuZemike 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
No comment on the IP address, and there wasn't anything of interest on that range. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
OK, thanks. – MuZemike 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 31 2010, 08:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Shamshadin ( talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA, which popped up after the previous bunch of socks was blocked, and picked the edit war on Erivan Khanate. In addition to CU, I think admins need to consider long term semi-protection of the above mentioned article. The disruption by the banned user resumed soon after the previous semi-protection expired. Please see the archives for the related IPs. Grand master 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed Endorsing for the first account. According to the archive, a CU was already done for the other two, with the socks listed as likely. They were only blocked for 24 hours though, so I suspect this needs to be adjusted.

 Clerk note: Changed to "endorse". Auntie E. ( talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Found some more socks related to Shamshadin.

There are (apparantly) two different lots of socks at work here. I've hopefully silenced at least one lot of them. CaptainGio ( talk · contribs) is related to AzerbaboonYuzbashi ( talk · contribs) and the second lot. -- Deskana (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 5 2010, 08:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

More socks and IPs of Hetoum are listed in the archives.

Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Ionidasz is a brand new account, but his very first edit was following me to a discussion board, and then to an admin's page. It is very suspicious that a newbie knows his way around Wikipedia so well, and turns up in the middle of the heated discussion. According to Deskana, there appears to be "two different lots of socks at work here": [10] Usually one is related to Paligun ( talk · contribs), and the other to Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). I asked Jpgordon to check if Ionidasz has any connection to Paligun (since Jpgordon dealt with the recent CUs on Paligun), and the result was negative: [11] To eliminate all doubts, I think we also need to check if Ionidasz has anything to do with Hetoum I. Grand master 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The fact that the very first edit of Ionidasz was posting at a message board where I posted a request in my opinion is very suspicious. Usually brand new users do not know their way around Wikipedia so well. Plus, I've been harassed by Hetoum in the past, he vandalized my user page 20 times, ( [12] [13], also see the history of my user page, the IPs used for vandalism belonged to Hetoum), and since then often appears to undo my edits or confront me at talk pages, which could be seen from the contribs of established socks of this user. Just an example, these accounts rvd me with their first edits: [14] [15] Another sock, ZiraFo ( talk · contribs), it was not established whether it was Paligun/Verjakette or Hetoum, but he only appeared to post at a discussion, and protested being checkusered. And vehemently protesting the CU is nothing unusual for Hetoum, see my report on CaptainGio and his comments there, accusing me of harassment, etc: [16] Grand master 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

I object to the CU run, there is no rational behind it. I already explained on the second phrase here that I don't claim to be a newbie. I will just copy past it:Users have the right to create a second account to not associate their main account with contributions on controversial topics. I didn't even edit an article related to Azerbaijan or Armenia nor a talkpage to begin with, because of all the complicated restrictions those article are placed on.

It really fails me why Grandmaster is on me like this after I explained once that I am not a newbie, and then asked him to reread where I say I am not one. I just wanted to comment on an administrators' notice board and did not want to use my first account because of the controversial nature of the subject, don't I have the right to do that? I am not those editors he claims I am, beside on what grounds he thinks I am them? He claims I should not be afraid of a CU here, that's not even the question. I don't want my account which has no history of editing in controversial subjects to be outed, and even if a CU confirms I am not those Grandmaster claims I am, and decide to not reveal my other account, this CU will know my primary account. I don't want to be associated with an account which has edited on a subject which is concidered as controversial.

There is no ground for an outing here, and I hope Grandmaster is warned to refrain badging an editor at the slight comment he makes. I hope he retract from the CU request himself and if he does not, I am confident the clerck who will review it will see that there is no rational to such a request. A CU is not for fishing. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As mentioned here I ended the discussion, I hope this satisfies Grandmaster. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: What is the reasonable suspicion that I am user Hetoum? I repeat, I simply replied on the administrators' noticeboard. I did even not engage in the articles. After doing that, I was accused to be Paligun..., Grandmaster has gone further requesting a check, which came negative. He then want another check. If a CU is going to check the socks of this Hetoum to see if he is using other socks, so that it satisfy Grandmaster, good. But I oppose to be directly checked. No evidences was provided which shows that I have anything in common with those users, neither any connection. Since Grandmaster continued after a first negative CU, asking me to be checked with another user, if that is not fishing I wonder what it is. It's ridiculous..., will he later ask a check with each and every banned users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have also replied on Jpgordon page here Ionidasz ( talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Answer to Auntie E. : The only thing I might have done wrong, was first to act as a foaming-from-the-mouth retard not to appear to come as very knowlegeable. But everything I did was all within the rules, I was not even given any chance when I was reported as two different users for simply writting in the administrators' noticeboard. Kww claimed there is reasonable suspicion, but I have written twice to him asking for some explaination and was ignored twice. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to have not replied. Yes, this case is not a clear-cut smoking gun. I was presented with a malformed SPI request: the requester clearly wanted a checkuser run, and hadn't included the macro. I added it for him. Hetoum I is clearly a sockpuppeteer, and I have no problem requesting checkusers to examine the behaviour of known sockpuppeteers. You are clearly a sock account that has been created solely for the purpose of commenting on an issue that Hetoum I is involved in. Sockpuppets are forbidden from editing project space. I'll grant that a notice board isn't specifically enumerated in the list of examples under editing project space, but it is still project space.
Basically, the case is strong enough for me to pass the buck to a clerk, which I did by providing the missing macro.— Kww( talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Where does it say that a CU request is justified for the use of an alternative account used for a day in the administrators' notice board? That's not about whatever CUers are untrusted, it is more about having another account which name reveal real information which I don't want a CU to know without valid reason. Grandmaster claims another sock CaptainGio protested, but what I can see from that persons contribution, he must've been checked for having contributed in those articles. I tell it again, I have created an account to edit something I have seen in the administrators' noticeboard. Ionidasz ( talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:ILLEGIT includes Editing project space as something a sock isn't supposed to do.— Kww( talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No need to impose any sanctions, no more editing on any accounts. CU are run just by dumping a banned user in the list and checking it with another user without having to submit any evidences other than it's a possible ban evasion. Just checkuse any user which you disagree with on the hallow basis that he is suspicious, as if suspiciousness is evidence that the user is the suspected user. Why then CU must require two users to check and compare them, when CU does not even require to provide evidence linking two difference users, you may just as well check the individual user alone. I just hope now if the coin is flip, Grandmaster does not protest of a CU is requested without having to provide any evidence connecting two different user. Ionidasz ( talk) 23:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The originator is asking for a CU, but didn't put the macro in properly. I'll add it so a clerk can accept or reject. As for the claim of "fishing", I don't think that applies: Hetoum I is indefinitely blocked, Hetoum I is a prolific sockpuppeteer, and there's reasonable suspicion that Ionidasz is Hetoum I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by User:Grandmaster

 Additional information needed Do you have any behavioral evidence? I am looking, and I don't see anything jump out at me. Auntie E. ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note:Ionidasz: this is the policy you are claiming this sock falls under:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

This policy is to protect you from real-world ramifications for editing controversial subjects. Ones that can get you in trouble with your family or employer, not ones that can get you in trouble on wikipedia. This policy is not to protect you from a checkuser if there is cause for one. Checkuser function is only granted to a very few highly trusted users. They can be trusted not to expose your original account if it is shown you are editing in good faith. Auntie E. ( talk) 04:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed I will endorse; legitimate socks are to be quietly editing article space, not getting involved in AN/I. Auntie E. ( talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Ionidasz: please note our privacy policy here. If you are operating this account legitimately, the CU will not release any information about you. Auntie E. ( talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Ionidasz ( talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). The account appears to be a legitimate alternate account, but the number of alternate accounts worries me, please stick to one. Brandon ( talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    It's quite unacceptable to repeatedly roll out new accounts to make comments in project space, as this one has done repeatedly. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
22 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

The IP 67.81.190.223 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) most likely belongs to the banned user Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). Similar IP 67.85.7.103 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) pointing at the same geolocation was blocked as a suspected sock. And then we have another IP, 70.21.250.2 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which traces to the same geolocation, but on a different ISP. It makes edits in the style of Hetoum, mass reverting pages and making racial insults: [17] [18], and personal attacks on admins: [19] The account of IsmailAhmedov ( talk · contribs) could also be the same person. It was created on 30 April,and was used to support a certain POV in various talks and votings. However, IsmailAhmedov could also be another mass puppeteer in Armenia - Azerbaijan topical area, Paligun ( talk · contribs), see this SPI request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive. It was created only 9 days after the last sock and underlying IP of Paligun were blocked. So I believe the account of IsmailAhmedov should be checked for connection with both Hetoum and Paligun. Grand master 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed The evidence is there. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Almost certainly Red X Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Is he unrelated to both Hetoum and Paligun? Grand master 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Grand master 06:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
 Clerk note: Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Seems to be Hetoum again. Same style edit warring across multiple articles, and uses the name of Khojaly in the user name. Grand master 05:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 05:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed, seems to be a pretty standard MO. Compare against Special:Contributions/AzeriTerroru for instance. May be hard to find one of Hetoum's account that's not stale to compare this to, however, it would seem to be worth running a check for sleepers, in any case. Spitfire Tally-ho! 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

As indicated, much of the data is stale. Technical evidence matches that of prior socks. Not by itself conclusive, but coupled with behavioral evidence it is. Amalthea 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TN X Man 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
21 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Judging by contribs, looks pretty much like Hetoum. Grand master 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Only based on the two Undos, or am I missing another connection? Amalthea 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There are actually more undos, and all the articles edited are related to Azerbaijan. Edit warring across multiple articles, which is usual for Hetoum. Plus, inclusion of a hoax: [20] [21], which can hardly be construed as good faith editing. Grand master 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Weird user indeed, added inacurate info like Grandmaster reported, but in the same time reverted vandalism here. Ionidasz ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Judging by the technical evidence they are almost certainly Red X Unrelated. Amalthea 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

While I don't exclude the possibility that Aram-van could be actually someone's else sock, 46.70.114.79 ducks like him and has edited his userpage several times. ASALA7.08.1982 showed similar avid interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan area, extensively reverting in other related pages. A check for relation to Hetoum I, who repeatedly run several AA socks, is appreciated. Twilightchill t 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I took the liberty to add Xebulon and IP 46.70.43.163 (hailing from the same geographic area) who came to his "rescue" in this report. Both newly created suspicious accounts Xebulon and Aram-van edit at around the same time, apparently in a coordinated manner. Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I added users Vandorenfm, Oliveriki, Gorzaim as possible socks of:
User:Andranikpasha
User:Meowy
User:Hetoum I
User:Magotteers
(who is the sock account of Meowy himself)
according to AN report which can be seen here: AN Report
Comments by other users

I think there are two sets of socks operating here, one of Hetoum I, and the other by Paligun. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive for more details. These 2 puppeteers have been disrupting Wikipedia for years. Since the old accounts are stale, they now manage to avoid CU detection. Grand master 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Something strange is going on here, but I don't know what. The IPs won't be part of the checkuser per the privacy policy. The data on Hetoum I is stale, so we can't draw a solid connection there, I don't think. But a CU can figure out whatever the hell is going on there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

All accounts seem to be Red X Unrelated. – MuZemike 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

07 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The account of Ali55te ( talk · contribs) appears to be a sleeper sock, and is highly suspicious. It was registered almost one year ago, on March 26, 2010, but started editing only recently, almost immediately engaging in edit wars in arbitration covered articles. He continued edit war waged by Aram-van on Duduk article after Aram-van was placed on revert restriction. It could be Aram-van or someone else evading arbitration restriction. It is also of note that Ali55te used anti-vandalism tool to edit war: [22] It is strange for a new user to be aware of such tools. Grand master 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Grand master 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Grandmaster is intentionally making a fake case here. First of all if you check all the edits that I make, eventually a wikipedia administrator or moderator approved my edits and saved the articles. If you check the history of Grandmaster he is consistently doing bad faith edits on Armenia related articles. I can not believe that such a person can be made a reviewer at wikiopedia. I think his current status at wikipedia must be reconsidered.

Now let's look at this claim : "It is also of note that Ali55te used anti-vandalism tool to edit war: [1] It is strange for a new user to be aware of such tools"

You can clearly see his bad faith in this claim.


If you check the history of Duduk article Grandmaster continously tried to vandalise the article and when he understood that he can not vandalise it further because of me he started this nonsense sockpuppet investigation. I hope a wikipedia administrator will investigate this case from his edits. Ali55te ( talk) 01:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

My first intention for creating an account was to add images related to the vandalism happened in the Akdamar Island and that time I found out that wikipedia have strict copy-right policies related to pictures and I was really busy that time I haven't started editting. This year I have enough time to look at wikipeda so I have started to do edits. I don't have any idea who is hetoum or aramvan, you can do whatever technical investigation you want I am 100% sure of myself. I insist that the bad faith edits that has been made by Grandmaster and the others to the Armenia related articles should be investigated deeply. Ali55te ( talk) 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
In addition according to the sockpuppet investigation guidience : VI. Notify all the users you are accusing using the template (sockpuppet template). Today I see the case by chance when I look at my userpage. I haven't added my userpage to my watchlist. The entry was made by the user Ebe123 not by the accuser itself. I hereby request again from administrators to invetigate this case as a bad faith from Grandmaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I want to enlighten more about the issue. The accuser Grandmaster has involved in a disruptive editing process in the Duduk article which he points it in his evidence list. I will explain simply how annoying the situation in this disruptive editing. If you check this BBC news from 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328285.stm You can see that Turkish government banned to use the latin words like armeniaca, kurdistaniaca from the biological names of the animals and species and plants. It is so funny. These names had been evolved for maybe 1500 - 2000 years of historical events. Now some people with the same mentality trying to edit Armenia related articles. When I check the Duduk article after I actively start to edit in wikipedia I see that some people intentionally trying to hide the origin of the insturment because the origin of the insturment is Armenian. So, I first added a reference from UNESCO website then they continued to revert it. Eventually I added a publication from UNESCO which is from a conference where the major countries from Caucassia came together like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. [23] In the publication it is clearly mentioned that the insturment has Armenian origins. But then they again reverted it. After that I reverted [24] the change and tagged it as vandalism because it was becoming a serious issue as the BBC news. Then the Grandmaster started this fake sockpuppet investigation with a hope that I will be banned. He did not even put a notice in my discussion board about the investigation. He did this because he realized that he can not disruptively edit the Duduk article anymore I was actively revealing his and some others effort. I hope I managed to explain the seriousness of this issue. After this case is close I will transfer this case to an administrative board because I know this section is not suitable for this kind of actions. Thank you. Ali55te ( talk) 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

By the way I am very open to any kind of checkuser investigation. Ali55te ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Ali55te and Aram-van are Red X Unrelated. Also, Hetoum I is  Stale. – MuZemike 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

28 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe that the Bars77 account (judging by interest in Geogian and Azeri topics) and all three IPs belong to Hetoum aka Aram-van. Two IPs seem to originate from Glendale and one from Nebraska. Hetoum I, just like recent IPs, has been interested in Karabakh Khanate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several times, specifically back in September 2007, and just like Bars77 tends to write with lower case letters (like [25], [26], [27]). To avoid future disruption I would like to request a rangeblock for the IPs starting from 75.51, if possible. Ehud ( talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Please be aware of Ehud Lezar's possibly retaliatory reasons behind this request in "Warning on disruptive conduct": [28] Gorzaim ( talk) 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • IPs seem to edit similar articles to Hetoum I. Bars77 appears to be a sock by editting pattern as well as getting involved in disputed area of Wikipedia immediately. Evidence isnt conclusive enough for a WP:DUCK though. v/r - T P 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Hetoum I is stale, but it is  Confirmed that Bars77 ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Xebulon ( talk · contribs)( case archive). Underlying IP and account blocked. No relation to the 75.x IPs, who are likely related. Keegan ( talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Both accounts have been blocked already. The IPs haven't edited in like a week, so I think we can leave them alone - for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
14 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Dear admins, I am not surprised and don't be surprised to see new sockpuppets and new reports. Look at the "new" 2492BC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He began editing just 3 weeks after Bars77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked because he was sockpuppet of Hetoum I. Because Bars77 and Aram-van ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person's sockpuppets, I am including him too. 2492BC edited the same articles Aram-van did ( Bana cathedral and Karabakh Khanate), but before today, he was editwarring with his IPs from California [29], [30], and now same POV: [31]. And Yerevan: [32], [33] and now same POV [34], [35]. Main sock masters which were found to use sockpuppets under Hetoum I always edited from California and Yerevan. Look here what he gives himself [36] after he is blocked. Because there are two sources of sockpuppet activity with IP's from Yerevan and California. I don't know about computers but I think they have access to providers and use many IP's. That's why I am also requesting check user in this report.   Dighapet ( talk) 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Note This is also a good proof that it is Aram-van who is not stale. [37] where it shows he is active and creates same pov in Armenian wikipedia: [38]. Dighapet ( talk) 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

 

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

 Confirmed that Aram-van ( talk · contribs) is the same as 2492BC ( talk · contribs). No comment on any of the IPs. TN X Man 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

27 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Surprise surprise, another "experienced" account comes online. This type of accounts emerge like mushrooms after a rain, yet the observation shows that their creation dates are really close to the dates when the other sockpuppet accounts are about to be blocked. My perception is that these accounts are created to simulate their contributions building by contentless edits like dozens of edits done by Captain armenia from the date of the establishment of the account. This user has made more than 100 edits to his user page since his account was set up on 24 August 2011 beuatifying it. So, from that time on, until 23 September 2011, all this user did (with exception of minor edits in 2-3 articles) was edit his user page :-) Is this how the sockpuppet accounts now try to deceive administrators? By trying to create an impression that they are users who have a growing edit count by the time their accounts are being questioned?

Needless to say, accounts of of Bars77 was blocked on 4 August; of 2492BC was blocked on 15 September; Vandorenfm was blocked on 15 September; of Gozaim was blocked on 18 September. And there comes Captain armenia.

What this user really started doing after 23 September was edit-warring on page Azerbaijan, making one POV edit [41], and 4 reverts [42], [43], [44], [45] in violation of WP:Three revert rule (not to worry, he will tell you he's a "new" user unaware of this rule). Look at his talk page with multiple warnings, last by an administrator [46]. He was also warned by another administrator for threatening fellow Wikipedians [47].

By the way, the name is similar to another sockpuppet account of Hetoum I - CaptainGio and his sporadic behavior and user page beautification is very similar to that of Aram-van. Please compare with current user page of Captain armenia. I don't like filing Sockpuppet Investigation requests but this one is calling it. Neftchi ( talk) 08:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hetoum I has been known to have used proxy IPs. As admin AGk pointed out there is enough evidence for a check. So my question is, is there a way to check if the user is using proxies? Neftchi ( talk) 10:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Indeed, the user has is known for mastering sockpuppetry. By looking at this discussion on this account talk page, we can see the administrator direct us to the page for long-term abuse of sockpuppetry. In other words, the user is a well known abuser of sock accounts and is not likely to stop at any time. I join Neftchi in requesting additional checks, if at all possible, of course. Thank you. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
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
  • Enough evidence to go for a check, but Captain armenia is technically  Unlikely to be related to the previous accounts. AGK [ • 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note The editor is definitely problematic and is probably on a "last chance" anyway given MOP's warning, but I don't see enough of a behavioral similarity to call this a duck match. I actually don't see much of a similarity between user pages either, the only similarity is that Aram-van and Captain armenia both have vertical lists of userboxes (though the boxes are different and located in a different place). Given the CU result above I think I have to conclude that this isn't a sockpuppet, though as I said this editor needs to be careful to avoid a block anyway. -- Atama 頭 23:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Oh boy, I think so many sock accounts keep popping up that I lost track of what sock belongs to which puppeteer.

The first suspicious account Repin3 was given birth shortly after both socks Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were blocked. Among his first edits are reverts in articles Dashalty , Karabakh and of course, two consecutive reverts [48] and [49] to one version of Vandorenfm, Gorzaim, Bars77, Szeget had been constantly edit-warring on for months before they were all blocked.

Oliveriki is yet another suspicious account which comes alive to supplement sock activity such as reverts in support of Xebulon ( [50], [51], [52]); and once active sock accounts are blocked, and his first edits are always in articles that the socks had operated in such as Nagorno-Karabakh.

Please look into these accounts. Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oliveriki seems to be just an account used to revert, no more. Simply put, somebody just places an order for an article to be reverted and the account behind an unrelated IP just enforces the task. Thanks all. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
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

Repin3 is a  Confirmed match to Vandorenfm, but Oliveriki is Red X Unrelated to those accounts or any others. TN X Man 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged Repin; I'm not really convinced of the other account, so I'll close for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
14 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Both users became active around the same time. Their activity graph has spikes in the same timeframes and reminds the activity of the trio blocked socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm (more about the block is presented under these SPI results. Just like those three, these new editors follow each others' edits such as on Serzh Sargsyan artcile, where the Oxi42 makes an unnecessary edit moving one sentence to an unrelated section, with the purpose of disguising the revert by George Spurlin, intended to remove the reference of Sargsyan being born in Azerbaijan SSR. Same happens in Murovdag article, where one adds POV removing the de-jure name of the mountain, while the other supplements his activities by reverting to the same POV. While there is a chance that the more occasional account George Spurlin may be geographically distant from Oxy42 and used to confuse the admins and to quack on behalf of Oxy42, it's obvious that the activity is coordinated between the two. For instance, Oxy42's activity is relatively rich to Spurlin (makes longer POV edits such as this one: [53] while the other just reverts or removes text). I'd also like to remind you that the emergence of these accounts follows the blocking of the previous sock of Hetoum I, Repin3 not so long ago.

Please do take a look at these accounts. Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Oxi42 ( talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed match to Repin3 ( talk · contribs). George Spurlin ( talk · contribs) looks Red X Unrelated. No sleepers found and  IP blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

12 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


These two new accounts have been recreated with the sole purpose to either evade the ban or edit war on behalf of established accounts which are under AA2 sanctions.

Needless to say, Hetoum I is the greatest unstopping master of puppets with a very long history of puppeterring. Since Heotum I and Xebulon's socks are interconnected, please take a look at the time intervals of how the new accounts pop up after the previous ones are found socks and blocked indefinitely. This instance is no exception. Both Dehr and Sprutt have been created to evade the block and edit-war on behalf of established users such as MarshallBagramyan. Now, Marshall's IP can differ from that of Sprutt, but the editing summaries and behavior seem very much like that of MarshallBagramyan. See the edit summary by Sprutt and by MarshallBagramyan, for instance reverting the same user with the same comments ("Fringe" is a word used very frequently by Marshall. I can provide more examples, if needed).

Another good example, is the usual OR use of words most probable, probable, probability, used by Marshall to mislead the reader when there are no facts provided by the source to support his additions (see by Sprutt and by MarshallBagramyan). Whether or not Sprutt is the direct sock account of MarshallBagramyan is unknown, but the fact that he might engage and use other people for ducking is very clear. See this message, as an example of Marshall communicating with another account about delivering a message from the major sockpuppeteer Meowy in his off-Wiki coordination, very much likely with Hetoum I. It is right to assume that he may use other new accounts for ducking, although it has already been established that MarshallBagramyan himself had used socks in the past.

Please take a look at these two new accounts which already started edit warring. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Marshall, I didn't expect you to make an admission or anything. So, calm down. The facts are presented and let the administrators be the judges. Whether you have a clear name or not is yet to be shown. The proof that you have used sockpuppets to evade certain restrictions in the past is indisputable. See above. Thank you. Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I didn't expect that either. Don't be that nervous. The worst that can happen is that there will be less socks. The notion that these two are socks is very obvious. Whether they duck for you or not will be discovered soon. Tuscumbia ( talk) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note

I added another suspicious user Hablabar who's helping out the aforementioned accounts on Tsitsernavank Monastery and Gandzasar Monastery articles. Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I would ask that Tuscumbia exercise better judgment while hurling accusations and making poorly formulated statements that connect two or more editors to such egregious violations as sockpuppeting. The litany of abuses he has attached to my name speaks little in originality, because he has been doing this for quite some time now, but I find it frustrating that I have to come here always in order to clear my name (I had to find out about this one for myself). I would appreciate it if he would from now either present concrete evidence to support his cockamamie conspiracies or not bothering say it all.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Your expectations don't concern me, but your slinging my name in the mud does. Please be mindful of that.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All three seem to be Red X Unrelated. – MuZemike 23:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

24 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Yeap, it's that time of the month. One group leaves, the other comes. User Zimmarod, who is obviously a casual editor, appears only when needed, much like the Oliveriki account. Look at their joint activity. After monthly intervals, Oliveriki is called to make that special sockpuppet edit such as this one, which was undone by one of editors for being the product of major sockpuppet master Hetoum I's socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm, which in turn, was reverted by another new suspicious account Szeget, who was, needless to say, found to be a sock of Hetoum I/Xebulon, as well.

Please compare the reverts by Szeget, Oliveriki and Zimmarod. Blocked accounts Gorzaim and Vandorenfm and Zimmarod watch the same articles such as Gandzasar monastery ( [54], [55], [56], [57]); Kingdom of Armenia (Middle Ages) ( [58], [59]); Artsakh ( [60], [61].

Moreover, the new accounts Hablabar, Wikiboer and Zimmarod, have the same interests ( [62], [63], [64], [65]) and ( [66], [67], [68]).

The trio Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm were found linked in one of previous SPIs.

Another interesting observation is that some of the new suspicious accounts which had been previously reported ( Hetoum I - Dec 12 and Meowy - Dec 12) such as that of Winterbliss, Winter Gaze, Dehr stop their activity, while the others such as Oliveriki, [69] and InThe Revolution come re-appear on the same day (eg. January 24). Talk about the off-wiki coordination. As I always suggested, the sockpuppet master is a traveller who starts accounts, makes a few edits, travels to another location, does the same, thus alternating edits on the same articles. Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you TNXMan. Obviously this is either a case of Wikipedia:DUCK or as noted above, a case of gaming the system by opening multiple accounts and using them in specific periods of time. The evidence presented above on some accounts ceasing their activity while others restart confirms this I would very much like to see if these accounts will continue to edit if they are placed under a temporary topic ban, as suggested by an admin WGFinley. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I have a different and more effective suggestion: why don't we ban Tuscumbia from misusing SPIs as a tool of edit war. He again demonstrated a well rehearsed, paranoid method of destroying new entrants to WP, by falsely accusing them in being sockpuppets. This is well summarized by an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other than "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→ [70]. Tuscumbia is a disruptive account, well said often enough. It is him who is gaming the system and it is him who is, by the way, misreporting on his targets: in examples above he used diffs that are related not to Zimmarod or Hablabar, but to Wikiboer (link number 14). Winterbliss ( talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
You can paste Lothar von Richthofen's comment for 20 more times, but it doesn't change the reality. The SPI and the clerks and admins who manage it, review the presented evidence and decide whether a particular case is worth looking into. So, I tend to think your attacks are meaningless and the admins will know better if the evidence presented is worthy or not. If there were no evidence of suspicious activity, I wouldn't be reporting anyone in the first place. The history shows the sockpuppeting activity of particular blocked editors such as Meowy, Hetoum I, Paligun, Andranikpasha is rich enough. The way the new accounts are generated and edit in a rather suspicious editing pattern, raises nothin but suspicion. So, I suggest saving your rhetoric for someone else. If you were an impartial new editor, you wouldn't object to a TBAN now, would you? Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Important Note for Admins

Please take a look at similarities in the following statements: by Zimmarod and by Gorzaim. Same person, same rhetoric. No doubt. Here is more of the same rhetoric: [71] and [72](along with the current [73]) Ironically, Winterbliss, Zimmarod and many others appeared at nearly the same time (meaning their active period coincides) and they speak the "same language". They play with the geography. Moving around, aren't you guys? :) As I mentioned above, the suggestion by WGFinley for a TBAN would be good and we would see how fast these accounts fade away. Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Not a slightest sign of similarity. Just cheap manipulation by Tuscumbia similar to showing Wikiboer's entries as Zimmarod's or Hablabar's. And it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here [74] and Tuscumbia here [75] and here [76]. Both make identically worded threats "["One more blind revert" - "You do that one more time" - "If you keep doing it"] and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Same language same threats. He does not say "I will report you if you do this/that" but "If - blah, blah - you will be reported." Identical structure of the phrase. Now people see who is the real sockmaster. Winterbliss ( talk) 02:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
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

Hablabar and Oliveriki was already checked and found to be unrelated to anyone (please see archive). Zimmarod also appears Red X Unrelated to any previous accounts. TN X Man 14:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hetoum_I/Archive&oldid=1136068289"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hetoum I

Hetoum I ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date September 27 2009, 08:17 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


It is also possible that the following accounts also belong to Hetoum:

Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including 1rv per week limitation, by Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs): [1]

However Hetoum I was evading his parole under various IPs, for which he was repeatedly blocked. See his block log. He increased his disruption recently, as IP 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), was going around and reverting the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan ( talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam ( talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy ( talk · contribs)), which suggests that he coordinates his activity with other banned users. Previously 216.165.12.84 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I ( talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: [2] [3], which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I.

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai ( talk · contribs): [4]. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to the mass killing of Azerbaijanis in Khojaly massacre. For this edit the IP was blocked for 1 year.

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai ( talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

  • 10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai) [5]

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary [6] is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person.

He returned as 128.122.90.186 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week for incivility, shortened to 31 hours. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Right now edit warring across multiple articles is continued by 216.165.33.90 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), also from NY University.

And this is from the talk of Hetoum's previous user account: [7] [8] He was engaged in vandalism from his very first steps in Wikipedia.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Grand master 08:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk endorsed on the face of it, almost too obvious to warrant CU attention, but the prolific nature of the apparent socking warrants CU attention to seek any underlying IP addresses. Mayalld ( talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Stale for all the accounts. Brandon ( talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

information Administrator note 216.165.33.0/25 rangeblocked for 2 weeks for disruption and sock puppetry. Given the other stale, abandoned, and otherwise already-blocked accounts, I cannot see any other administrative action needed here. MuZemike 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think an admin needs to make a judgment whether Hetoum I is the sockmaster. Grand master 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Right. I did overlook the sockmaster again. After reading the RFAR, I have blocked User:Hetoum I for 6 months for sock puppetry and violation of ArbCom restrictions (note that the previous enforcement remedies are no longer in effect, and that the mandatory "one-year-block" is no longer prescribed after the 5th block. However, I do feel 6 months is sufficient here. MuZemike 05:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 15 2010, 07:11 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

CaptainGio ( talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA and another sock of the banned user Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). His contribs consist only of edit warring on the page Khanate of Erevan‎. This page is regularly being reverted by socks of Hetoum to almost the same version. Previously it was reverted by Brunotheborat ( talk · contribs), Fazeri ( talk · contribs), Plainsriver ( talk · contribs), and 216.165.33.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), all socks of Hetoum. Please see this: [9]. After the article was semi-protected for a long period, edit warring stopped. Now that the protection expired, the edit war resumed. Hetoum is an indef banned user, who used a large army of socks and IPs to edit war on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, which have been a subject to a number of arbitration cases. Hetoum normally edits from IPs that point to NY University. I included in this request some of his recent IPs, and there are more IPs used by Hetoum in the archive of this case. Maybe this does not even need a CU, as CaptainGio is an obvious SPA, and an admin can make a call, but if not, then please run a check. Grand master 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not sure if it is regular practice to accuse someone of sockpuppeting when you do not agree with their edits, but it seems rediculous. I editted a page with cited information and left comments under the talk section. The opposing arguments have yet to provide any citation, and only self-conflicting arguments. My edit was reverted without a single comment to validity of content on talk page with abusive summary and personal attack that being a sock is not OK. I would like this use to apologize to me, and rectify the situation. CaptainGio ( talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Then how come that your very first edit was this revert of the article to this version by Hetoum? Grand master 09:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Please stop harassing me. It is very unpleasant, how would you like that to be done to you? I also editted Sayat Nova under a different account name, so you may want to add both names under me, but again, I think this checkuser will clear me. CaptainGio ( talk) 17:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed – The relevant IP range that Hetoum I has used in the past was 216.165.33.0/25. – MuZemike 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Likely. The two listed sockpuppets are definitely Captain Gio's (not that he's making any bones about that). Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How about the IP 67.85.7.103? It is mass reverting pages now, in the style of Hetoum. Grand master 07:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I believe that IP is autoblocked right now. Mackensen, any possibility of a hardblock on 216.165.33.0/25? – MuZemike 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
No comment on the IP address, and there wasn't anything of interest on that range. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
OK, thanks. – MuZemike 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 31 2010, 08:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Shamshadin ( talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA, which popped up after the previous bunch of socks was blocked, and picked the edit war on Erivan Khanate. In addition to CU, I think admins need to consider long term semi-protection of the above mentioned article. The disruption by the banned user resumed soon after the previous semi-protection expired. Please see the archives for the related IPs. Grand master 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed Endorsing for the first account. According to the archive, a CU was already done for the other two, with the socks listed as likely. They were only blocked for 24 hours though, so I suspect this needs to be adjusted.

 Clerk note: Changed to "endorse". Auntie E. ( talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Found some more socks related to Shamshadin.

There are (apparantly) two different lots of socks at work here. I've hopefully silenced at least one lot of them. CaptainGio ( talk · contribs) is related to AzerbaboonYuzbashi ( talk · contribs) and the second lot. -- Deskana (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 5 2010, 08:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

More socks and IPs of Hetoum are listed in the archives.

Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Ionidasz is a brand new account, but his very first edit was following me to a discussion board, and then to an admin's page. It is very suspicious that a newbie knows his way around Wikipedia so well, and turns up in the middle of the heated discussion. According to Deskana, there appears to be "two different lots of socks at work here": [10] Usually one is related to Paligun ( talk · contribs), and the other to Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). I asked Jpgordon to check if Ionidasz has any connection to Paligun (since Jpgordon dealt with the recent CUs on Paligun), and the result was negative: [11] To eliminate all doubts, I think we also need to check if Ionidasz has anything to do with Hetoum I. Grand master 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The fact that the very first edit of Ionidasz was posting at a message board where I posted a request in my opinion is very suspicious. Usually brand new users do not know their way around Wikipedia so well. Plus, I've been harassed by Hetoum in the past, he vandalized my user page 20 times, ( [12] [13], also see the history of my user page, the IPs used for vandalism belonged to Hetoum), and since then often appears to undo my edits or confront me at talk pages, which could be seen from the contribs of established socks of this user. Just an example, these accounts rvd me with their first edits: [14] [15] Another sock, ZiraFo ( talk · contribs), it was not established whether it was Paligun/Verjakette or Hetoum, but he only appeared to post at a discussion, and protested being checkusered. And vehemently protesting the CU is nothing unusual for Hetoum, see my report on CaptainGio and his comments there, accusing me of harassment, etc: [16] Grand master 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

I object to the CU run, there is no rational behind it. I already explained on the second phrase here that I don't claim to be a newbie. I will just copy past it:Users have the right to create a second account to not associate their main account with contributions on controversial topics. I didn't even edit an article related to Azerbaijan or Armenia nor a talkpage to begin with, because of all the complicated restrictions those article are placed on.

It really fails me why Grandmaster is on me like this after I explained once that I am not a newbie, and then asked him to reread where I say I am not one. I just wanted to comment on an administrators' notice board and did not want to use my first account because of the controversial nature of the subject, don't I have the right to do that? I am not those editors he claims I am, beside on what grounds he thinks I am them? He claims I should not be afraid of a CU here, that's not even the question. I don't want my account which has no history of editing in controversial subjects to be outed, and even if a CU confirms I am not those Grandmaster claims I am, and decide to not reveal my other account, this CU will know my primary account. I don't want to be associated with an account which has edited on a subject which is concidered as controversial.

There is no ground for an outing here, and I hope Grandmaster is warned to refrain badging an editor at the slight comment he makes. I hope he retract from the CU request himself and if he does not, I am confident the clerck who will review it will see that there is no rational to such a request. A CU is not for fishing. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As mentioned here I ended the discussion, I hope this satisfies Grandmaster. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: What is the reasonable suspicion that I am user Hetoum? I repeat, I simply replied on the administrators' noticeboard. I did even not engage in the articles. After doing that, I was accused to be Paligun..., Grandmaster has gone further requesting a check, which came negative. He then want another check. If a CU is going to check the socks of this Hetoum to see if he is using other socks, so that it satisfy Grandmaster, good. But I oppose to be directly checked. No evidences was provided which shows that I have anything in common with those users, neither any connection. Since Grandmaster continued after a first negative CU, asking me to be checked with another user, if that is not fishing I wonder what it is. It's ridiculous..., will he later ask a check with each and every banned users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have also replied on Jpgordon page here Ionidasz ( talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Answer to Auntie E. : The only thing I might have done wrong, was first to act as a foaming-from-the-mouth retard not to appear to come as very knowlegeable. But everything I did was all within the rules, I was not even given any chance when I was reported as two different users for simply writting in the administrators' noticeboard. Kww claimed there is reasonable suspicion, but I have written twice to him asking for some explaination and was ignored twice. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to have not replied. Yes, this case is not a clear-cut smoking gun. I was presented with a malformed SPI request: the requester clearly wanted a checkuser run, and hadn't included the macro. I added it for him. Hetoum I is clearly a sockpuppeteer, and I have no problem requesting checkusers to examine the behaviour of known sockpuppeteers. You are clearly a sock account that has been created solely for the purpose of commenting on an issue that Hetoum I is involved in. Sockpuppets are forbidden from editing project space. I'll grant that a notice board isn't specifically enumerated in the list of examples under editing project space, but it is still project space.
Basically, the case is strong enough for me to pass the buck to a clerk, which I did by providing the missing macro.— Kww( talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Where does it say that a CU request is justified for the use of an alternative account used for a day in the administrators' notice board? That's not about whatever CUers are untrusted, it is more about having another account which name reveal real information which I don't want a CU to know without valid reason. Grandmaster claims another sock CaptainGio protested, but what I can see from that persons contribution, he must've been checked for having contributed in those articles. I tell it again, I have created an account to edit something I have seen in the administrators' noticeboard. Ionidasz ( talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:ILLEGIT includes Editing project space as something a sock isn't supposed to do.— Kww( talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No need to impose any sanctions, no more editing on any accounts. CU are run just by dumping a banned user in the list and checking it with another user without having to submit any evidences other than it's a possible ban evasion. Just checkuse any user which you disagree with on the hallow basis that he is suspicious, as if suspiciousness is evidence that the user is the suspected user. Why then CU must require two users to check and compare them, when CU does not even require to provide evidence linking two difference users, you may just as well check the individual user alone. I just hope now if the coin is flip, Grandmaster does not protest of a CU is requested without having to provide any evidence connecting two different user. Ionidasz ( talk) 23:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The originator is asking for a CU, but didn't put the macro in properly. I'll add it so a clerk can accept or reject. As for the claim of "fishing", I don't think that applies: Hetoum I is indefinitely blocked, Hetoum I is a prolific sockpuppeteer, and there's reasonable suspicion that Ionidasz is Hetoum I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by User:Grandmaster

 Additional information needed Do you have any behavioral evidence? I am looking, and I don't see anything jump out at me. Auntie E. ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note:Ionidasz: this is the policy you are claiming this sock falls under:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

This policy is to protect you from real-world ramifications for editing controversial subjects. Ones that can get you in trouble with your family or employer, not ones that can get you in trouble on wikipedia. This policy is not to protect you from a checkuser if there is cause for one. Checkuser function is only granted to a very few highly trusted users. They can be trusted not to expose your original account if it is shown you are editing in good faith. Auntie E. ( talk) 04:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed I will endorse; legitimate socks are to be quietly editing article space, not getting involved in AN/I. Auntie E. ( talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Ionidasz: please note our privacy policy here. If you are operating this account legitimately, the CU will not release any information about you. Auntie E. ( talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Ionidasz ( talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). The account appears to be a legitimate alternate account, but the number of alternate accounts worries me, please stick to one. Brandon ( talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    It's quite unacceptable to repeatedly roll out new accounts to make comments in project space, as this one has done repeatedly. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
22 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

The IP 67.81.190.223 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) most likely belongs to the banned user Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). Similar IP 67.85.7.103 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) pointing at the same geolocation was blocked as a suspected sock. And then we have another IP, 70.21.250.2 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which traces to the same geolocation, but on a different ISP. It makes edits in the style of Hetoum, mass reverting pages and making racial insults: [17] [18], and personal attacks on admins: [19] The account of IsmailAhmedov ( talk · contribs) could also be the same person. It was created on 30 April,and was used to support a certain POV in various talks and votings. However, IsmailAhmedov could also be another mass puppeteer in Armenia - Azerbaijan topical area, Paligun ( talk · contribs), see this SPI request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive. It was created only 9 days after the last sock and underlying IP of Paligun were blocked. So I believe the account of IsmailAhmedov should be checked for connection with both Hetoum and Paligun. Grand master 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed The evidence is there. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Almost certainly Red X Unrelated. No comment on the IPs. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Is he unrelated to both Hetoum and Paligun? Grand master 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Grand master 06:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
 Clerk note: Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Seems to be Hetoum again. Same style edit warring across multiple articles, and uses the name of Khojaly in the user name. Grand master 05:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 05:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed, seems to be a pretty standard MO. Compare against Special:Contributions/AzeriTerroru for instance. May be hard to find one of Hetoum's account that's not stale to compare this to, however, it would seem to be worth running a check for sleepers, in any case. Spitfire Tally-ho! 11:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

As indicated, much of the data is stale. Technical evidence matches that of prior socks. Not by itself conclusive, but coupled with behavioral evidence it is. Amalthea 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TN X Man 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
21 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster

Judging by contribs, looks pretty much like Hetoum. Grand master 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Only based on the two Undos, or am I missing another connection? Amalthea 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There are actually more undos, and all the articles edited are related to Azerbaijan. Edit warring across multiple articles, which is usual for Hetoum. Plus, inclusion of a hoax: [20] [21], which can hardly be construed as good faith editing. Grand master 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Weird user indeed, added inacurate info like Grandmaster reported, but in the same time reverted vandalism here. Ionidasz ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Grand master 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Judging by the technical evidence they are almost certainly Red X Unrelated. Amalthea 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

While I don't exclude the possibility that Aram-van could be actually someone's else sock, 46.70.114.79 ducks like him and has edited his userpage several times. ASALA7.08.1982 showed similar avid interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan area, extensively reverting in other related pages. A check for relation to Hetoum I, who repeatedly run several AA socks, is appreciated. Twilightchill t 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I took the liberty to add Xebulon and IP 46.70.43.163 (hailing from the same geographic area) who came to his "rescue" in this report. Both newly created suspicious accounts Xebulon and Aram-van edit at around the same time, apparently in a coordinated manner. Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I added users Vandorenfm, Oliveriki, Gorzaim as possible socks of:
User:Andranikpasha
User:Meowy
User:Hetoum I
User:Magotteers
(who is the sock account of Meowy himself)
according to AN report which can be seen here: AN Report
Comments by other users

I think there are two sets of socks operating here, one of Hetoum I, and the other by Paligun. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive for more details. These 2 puppeteers have been disrupting Wikipedia for years. Since the old accounts are stale, they now manage to avoid CU detection. Grand master 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Something strange is going on here, but I don't know what. The IPs won't be part of the checkuser per the privacy policy. The data on Hetoum I is stale, so we can't draw a solid connection there, I don't think. But a CU can figure out whatever the hell is going on there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

All accounts seem to be Red X Unrelated. – MuZemike 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

07 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The account of Ali55te ( talk · contribs) appears to be a sleeper sock, and is highly suspicious. It was registered almost one year ago, on March 26, 2010, but started editing only recently, almost immediately engaging in edit wars in arbitration covered articles. He continued edit war waged by Aram-van on Duduk article after Aram-van was placed on revert restriction. It could be Aram-van or someone else evading arbitration restriction. It is also of note that Ali55te used anti-vandalism tool to edit war: [22] It is strange for a new user to be aware of such tools. Grand master 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Grand master 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Grandmaster is intentionally making a fake case here. First of all if you check all the edits that I make, eventually a wikipedia administrator or moderator approved my edits and saved the articles. If you check the history of Grandmaster he is consistently doing bad faith edits on Armenia related articles. I can not believe that such a person can be made a reviewer at wikiopedia. I think his current status at wikipedia must be reconsidered.

Now let's look at this claim : "It is also of note that Ali55te used anti-vandalism tool to edit war: [1] It is strange for a new user to be aware of such tools"

You can clearly see his bad faith in this claim.


If you check the history of Duduk article Grandmaster continously tried to vandalise the article and when he understood that he can not vandalise it further because of me he started this nonsense sockpuppet investigation. I hope a wikipedia administrator will investigate this case from his edits. Ali55te ( talk) 01:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

My first intention for creating an account was to add images related to the vandalism happened in the Akdamar Island and that time I found out that wikipedia have strict copy-right policies related to pictures and I was really busy that time I haven't started editting. This year I have enough time to look at wikipeda so I have started to do edits. I don't have any idea who is hetoum or aramvan, you can do whatever technical investigation you want I am 100% sure of myself. I insist that the bad faith edits that has been made by Grandmaster and the others to the Armenia related articles should be investigated deeply. Ali55te ( talk) 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
In addition according to the sockpuppet investigation guidience : VI. Notify all the users you are accusing using the template (sockpuppet template). Today I see the case by chance when I look at my userpage. I haven't added my userpage to my watchlist. The entry was made by the user Ebe123 not by the accuser itself. I hereby request again from administrators to invetigate this case as a bad faith from Grandmaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I want to enlighten more about the issue. The accuser Grandmaster has involved in a disruptive editing process in the Duduk article which he points it in his evidence list. I will explain simply how annoying the situation in this disruptive editing. If you check this BBC news from 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328285.stm You can see that Turkish government banned to use the latin words like armeniaca, kurdistaniaca from the biological names of the animals and species and plants. It is so funny. These names had been evolved for maybe 1500 - 2000 years of historical events. Now some people with the same mentality trying to edit Armenia related articles. When I check the Duduk article after I actively start to edit in wikipedia I see that some people intentionally trying to hide the origin of the insturment because the origin of the insturment is Armenian. So, I first added a reference from UNESCO website then they continued to revert it. Eventually I added a publication from UNESCO which is from a conference where the major countries from Caucassia came together like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. [23] In the publication it is clearly mentioned that the insturment has Armenian origins. But then they again reverted it. After that I reverted [24] the change and tagged it as vandalism because it was becoming a serious issue as the BBC news. Then the Grandmaster started this fake sockpuppet investigation with a hope that I will be banned. He did not even put a notice in my discussion board about the investigation. He did this because he realized that he can not disruptively edit the Duduk article anymore I was actively revealing his and some others effort. I hope I managed to explain the seriousness of this issue. After this case is close I will transfer this case to an administrative board because I know this section is not suitable for this kind of actions. Thank you. Ali55te ( talk) 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

By the way I am very open to any kind of checkuser investigation. Ali55te ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Ali55te and Aram-van are Red X Unrelated. Also, Hetoum I is  Stale. – MuZemike 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

28 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe that the Bars77 account (judging by interest in Geogian and Azeri topics) and all three IPs belong to Hetoum aka Aram-van. Two IPs seem to originate from Glendale and one from Nebraska. Hetoum I, just like recent IPs, has been interested in Karabakh Khanate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several times, specifically back in September 2007, and just like Bars77 tends to write with lower case letters (like [25], [26], [27]). To avoid future disruption I would like to request a rangeblock for the IPs starting from 75.51, if possible. Ehud ( talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Please be aware of Ehud Lezar's possibly retaliatory reasons behind this request in "Warning on disruptive conduct": [28] Gorzaim ( talk) 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • IPs seem to edit similar articles to Hetoum I. Bars77 appears to be a sock by editting pattern as well as getting involved in disputed area of Wikipedia immediately. Evidence isnt conclusive enough for a WP:DUCK though. v/r - T P 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Hetoum I is stale, but it is  Confirmed that Bars77 ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Xebulon ( talk · contribs)( case archive). Underlying IP and account blocked. No relation to the 75.x IPs, who are likely related. Keegan ( talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Both accounts have been blocked already. The IPs haven't edited in like a week, so I think we can leave them alone - for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
14 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Dear admins, I am not surprised and don't be surprised to see new sockpuppets and new reports. Look at the "new" 2492BC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He began editing just 3 weeks after Bars77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked because he was sockpuppet of Hetoum I. Because Bars77 and Aram-van ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person's sockpuppets, I am including him too. 2492BC edited the same articles Aram-van did ( Bana cathedral and Karabakh Khanate), but before today, he was editwarring with his IPs from California [29], [30], and now same POV: [31]. And Yerevan: [32], [33] and now same POV [34], [35]. Main sock masters which were found to use sockpuppets under Hetoum I always edited from California and Yerevan. Look here what he gives himself [36] after he is blocked. Because there are two sources of sockpuppet activity with IP's from Yerevan and California. I don't know about computers but I think they have access to providers and use many IP's. That's why I am also requesting check user in this report.   Dighapet ( talk) 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Note This is also a good proof that it is Aram-van who is not stale. [37] where it shows he is active and creates same pov in Armenian wikipedia: [38]. Dighapet ( talk) 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

 

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

 Confirmed that Aram-van ( talk · contribs) is the same as 2492BC ( talk · contribs). No comment on any of the IPs. TN X Man 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

27 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Surprise surprise, another "experienced" account comes online. This type of accounts emerge like mushrooms after a rain, yet the observation shows that their creation dates are really close to the dates when the other sockpuppet accounts are about to be blocked. My perception is that these accounts are created to simulate their contributions building by contentless edits like dozens of edits done by Captain armenia from the date of the establishment of the account. This user has made more than 100 edits to his user page since his account was set up on 24 August 2011 beuatifying it. So, from that time on, until 23 September 2011, all this user did (with exception of minor edits in 2-3 articles) was edit his user page :-) Is this how the sockpuppet accounts now try to deceive administrators? By trying to create an impression that they are users who have a growing edit count by the time their accounts are being questioned?

Needless to say, accounts of of Bars77 was blocked on 4 August; of 2492BC was blocked on 15 September; Vandorenfm was blocked on 15 September; of Gozaim was blocked on 18 September. And there comes Captain armenia.

What this user really started doing after 23 September was edit-warring on page Azerbaijan, making one POV edit [41], and 4 reverts [42], [43], [44], [45] in violation of WP:Three revert rule (not to worry, he will tell you he's a "new" user unaware of this rule). Look at his talk page with multiple warnings, last by an administrator [46]. He was also warned by another administrator for threatening fellow Wikipedians [47].

By the way, the name is similar to another sockpuppet account of Hetoum I - CaptainGio and his sporadic behavior and user page beautification is very similar to that of Aram-van. Please compare with current user page of Captain armenia. I don't like filing Sockpuppet Investigation requests but this one is calling it. Neftchi ( talk) 08:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hetoum I has been known to have used proxy IPs. As admin AGk pointed out there is enough evidence for a check. So my question is, is there a way to check if the user is using proxies? Neftchi ( talk) 10:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Indeed, the user has is known for mastering sockpuppetry. By looking at this discussion on this account talk page, we can see the administrator direct us to the page for long-term abuse of sockpuppetry. In other words, the user is a well known abuser of sock accounts and is not likely to stop at any time. I join Neftchi in requesting additional checks, if at all possible, of course. Thank you. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
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
  • Enough evidence to go for a check, but Captain armenia is technically  Unlikely to be related to the previous accounts. AGK [ • 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note The editor is definitely problematic and is probably on a "last chance" anyway given MOP's warning, but I don't see enough of a behavioral similarity to call this a duck match. I actually don't see much of a similarity between user pages either, the only similarity is that Aram-van and Captain armenia both have vertical lists of userboxes (though the boxes are different and located in a different place). Given the CU result above I think I have to conclude that this isn't a sockpuppet, though as I said this editor needs to be careful to avoid a block anyway. -- Atama 頭 23:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Oh boy, I think so many sock accounts keep popping up that I lost track of what sock belongs to which puppeteer.

The first suspicious account Repin3 was given birth shortly after both socks Vandorenfm and Gorzaim were blocked. Among his first edits are reverts in articles Dashalty , Karabakh and of course, two consecutive reverts [48] and [49] to one version of Vandorenfm, Gorzaim, Bars77, Szeget had been constantly edit-warring on for months before they were all blocked.

Oliveriki is yet another suspicious account which comes alive to supplement sock activity such as reverts in support of Xebulon ( [50], [51], [52]); and once active sock accounts are blocked, and his first edits are always in articles that the socks had operated in such as Nagorno-Karabakh.

Please look into these accounts. Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oliveriki seems to be just an account used to revert, no more. Simply put, somebody just places an order for an article to be reverted and the account behind an unrelated IP just enforces the task. Thanks all. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
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

Repin3 is a  Confirmed match to Vandorenfm, but Oliveriki is Red X Unrelated to those accounts or any others. TN X Man 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged Repin; I'm not really convinced of the other account, so I'll close for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
14 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Both users became active around the same time. Their activity graph has spikes in the same timeframes and reminds the activity of the trio blocked socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm (more about the block is presented under these SPI results. Just like those three, these new editors follow each others' edits such as on Serzh Sargsyan artcile, where the Oxi42 makes an unnecessary edit moving one sentence to an unrelated section, with the purpose of disguising the revert by George Spurlin, intended to remove the reference of Sargsyan being born in Azerbaijan SSR. Same happens in Murovdag article, where one adds POV removing the de-jure name of the mountain, while the other supplements his activities by reverting to the same POV. While there is a chance that the more occasional account George Spurlin may be geographically distant from Oxy42 and used to confuse the admins and to quack on behalf of Oxy42, it's obvious that the activity is coordinated between the two. For instance, Oxy42's activity is relatively rich to Spurlin (makes longer POV edits such as this one: [53] while the other just reverts or removes text). I'd also like to remind you that the emergence of these accounts follows the blocking of the previous sock of Hetoum I, Repin3 not so long ago.

Please do take a look at these accounts. Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Oxi42 ( talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed match to Repin3 ( talk · contribs). George Spurlin ( talk · contribs) looks Red X Unrelated. No sleepers found and  IP blocked. Elockid ( Talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

12 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


These two new accounts have been recreated with the sole purpose to either evade the ban or edit war on behalf of established accounts which are under AA2 sanctions.

Needless to say, Hetoum I is the greatest unstopping master of puppets with a very long history of puppeterring. Since Heotum I and Xebulon's socks are interconnected, please take a look at the time intervals of how the new accounts pop up after the previous ones are found socks and blocked indefinitely. This instance is no exception. Both Dehr and Sprutt have been created to evade the block and edit-war on behalf of established users such as MarshallBagramyan. Now, Marshall's IP can differ from that of Sprutt, but the editing summaries and behavior seem very much like that of MarshallBagramyan. See the edit summary by Sprutt and by MarshallBagramyan, for instance reverting the same user with the same comments ("Fringe" is a word used very frequently by Marshall. I can provide more examples, if needed).

Another good example, is the usual OR use of words most probable, probable, probability, used by Marshall to mislead the reader when there are no facts provided by the source to support his additions (see by Sprutt and by MarshallBagramyan). Whether or not Sprutt is the direct sock account of MarshallBagramyan is unknown, but the fact that he might engage and use other people for ducking is very clear. See this message, as an example of Marshall communicating with another account about delivering a message from the major sockpuppeteer Meowy in his off-Wiki coordination, very much likely with Hetoum I. It is right to assume that he may use other new accounts for ducking, although it has already been established that MarshallBagramyan himself had used socks in the past.

Please take a look at these two new accounts which already started edit warring. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Marshall, I didn't expect you to make an admission or anything. So, calm down. The facts are presented and let the administrators be the judges. Whether you have a clear name or not is yet to be shown. The proof that you have used sockpuppets to evade certain restrictions in the past is indisputable. See above. Thank you. Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I didn't expect that either. Don't be that nervous. The worst that can happen is that there will be less socks. The notion that these two are socks is very obvious. Whether they duck for you or not will be discovered soon. Tuscumbia ( talk) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note

I added another suspicious user Hablabar who's helping out the aforementioned accounts on Tsitsernavank Monastery and Gandzasar Monastery articles. Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I would ask that Tuscumbia exercise better judgment while hurling accusations and making poorly formulated statements that connect two or more editors to such egregious violations as sockpuppeting. The litany of abuses he has attached to my name speaks little in originality, because he has been doing this for quite some time now, but I find it frustrating that I have to come here always in order to clear my name (I had to find out about this one for myself). I would appreciate it if he would from now either present concrete evidence to support his cockamamie conspiracies or not bothering say it all.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Your expectations don't concern me, but your slinging my name in the mud does. Please be mindful of that.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All three seem to be Red X Unrelated. – MuZemike 23:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

24 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Yeap, it's that time of the month. One group leaves, the other comes. User Zimmarod, who is obviously a casual editor, appears only when needed, much like the Oliveriki account. Look at their joint activity. After monthly intervals, Oliveriki is called to make that special sockpuppet edit such as this one, which was undone by one of editors for being the product of major sockpuppet master Hetoum I's socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm, which in turn, was reverted by another new suspicious account Szeget, who was, needless to say, found to be a sock of Hetoum I/Xebulon, as well.

Please compare the reverts by Szeget, Oliveriki and Zimmarod. Blocked accounts Gorzaim and Vandorenfm and Zimmarod watch the same articles such as Gandzasar monastery ( [54], [55], [56], [57]); Kingdom of Armenia (Middle Ages) ( [58], [59]); Artsakh ( [60], [61].

Moreover, the new accounts Hablabar, Wikiboer and Zimmarod, have the same interests ( [62], [63], [64], [65]) and ( [66], [67], [68]).

The trio Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm were found linked in one of previous SPIs.

Another interesting observation is that some of the new suspicious accounts which had been previously reported ( Hetoum I - Dec 12 and Meowy - Dec 12) such as that of Winterbliss, Winter Gaze, Dehr stop their activity, while the others such as Oliveriki, [69] and InThe Revolution come re-appear on the same day (eg. January 24). Talk about the off-wiki coordination. As I always suggested, the sockpuppet master is a traveller who starts accounts, makes a few edits, travels to another location, does the same, thus alternating edits on the same articles. Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you TNXMan. Obviously this is either a case of Wikipedia:DUCK or as noted above, a case of gaming the system by opening multiple accounts and using them in specific periods of time. The evidence presented above on some accounts ceasing their activity while others restart confirms this I would very much like to see if these accounts will continue to edit if they are placed under a temporary topic ban, as suggested by an admin WGFinley. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I have a different and more effective suggestion: why don't we ban Tuscumbia from misusing SPIs as a tool of edit war. He again demonstrated a well rehearsed, paranoid method of destroying new entrants to WP, by falsely accusing them in being sockpuppets. This is well summarized by an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other than "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→ [70]. Tuscumbia is a disruptive account, well said often enough. It is him who is gaming the system and it is him who is, by the way, misreporting on his targets: in examples above he used diffs that are related not to Zimmarod or Hablabar, but to Wikiboer (link number 14). Winterbliss ( talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
You can paste Lothar von Richthofen's comment for 20 more times, but it doesn't change the reality. The SPI and the clerks and admins who manage it, review the presented evidence and decide whether a particular case is worth looking into. So, I tend to think your attacks are meaningless and the admins will know better if the evidence presented is worthy or not. If there were no evidence of suspicious activity, I wouldn't be reporting anyone in the first place. The history shows the sockpuppeting activity of particular blocked editors such as Meowy, Hetoum I, Paligun, Andranikpasha is rich enough. The way the new accounts are generated and edit in a rather suspicious editing pattern, raises nothin but suspicion. So, I suggest saving your rhetoric for someone else. If you were an impartial new editor, you wouldn't object to a TBAN now, would you? Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Important Note for Admins

Please take a look at similarities in the following statements: by Zimmarod and by Gorzaim. Same person, same rhetoric. No doubt. Here is more of the same rhetoric: [71] and [72](along with the current [73]) Ironically, Winterbliss, Zimmarod and many others appeared at nearly the same time (meaning their active period coincides) and they speak the "same language". They play with the geography. Moving around, aren't you guys? :) As I mentioned above, the suggestion by WGFinley for a TBAN would be good and we would see how fast these accounts fade away. Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Not a slightest sign of similarity. Just cheap manipulation by Tuscumbia similar to showing Wikiboer's entries as Zimmarod's or Hablabar's. And it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here [74] and Tuscumbia here [75] and here [76]. Both make identically worded threats "["One more blind revert" - "You do that one more time" - "If you keep doing it"] and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Same language same threats. He does not say "I will report you if you do this/that" but "If - blah, blah - you will be reported." Identical structure of the phrase. Now people see who is the real sockmaster. Winterbliss ( talk) 02:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
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

Hablabar and Oliveriki was already checked and found to be unrelated to anyone (please see archive). Zimmarod also appears Red X Unrelated to any previous accounts. TN X Man 14:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hetoum_I/Archive&oldid=1136068289"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE