Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Araxes TheThief

Araxes TheThief

Araxes TheThief (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected


09 July 2024

edit

  – A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

It's been quite sometime since the last report, and it seems unlikely that continuous socking would cease for no reason. This account was created just a few days after Trannoyye was blocked. The nickname makes little sense just like the majority of the latest socks. All of their edits originate in a mobile device just like the previous socks. They rarely provide edit summaries similar to the previous socks. Compare their relevant % with that of the sock that avoided block for the longest. A quick look at their edit history indicates that they are interested in the same intersection of topics, including Iranian, Armenian, and Kurdish. Them easily adding content and citing sources from the get-go minutes after they have created their account and all of the other points above prompt me to request a CU. Aintabli (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

As someone who has made the majority of SPI reports against AraxesTheThief (or perhaps not anymore, anyways) this actually makes a lot of sense. I'll do some digging. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to gradually increase the list;

  1. Ayyubid dynasty, both adding unnecessary sources about their Kurdish origin which is not exactly a dispute [1] [2].
  2. Shaddadids Both adding the same Vacca citation to once again unnecessary add more citations about their Kurdish origin [3] [4]
  3. Both (Jackhanma69 and AraxesTheThief's sock Dêrsimî62) expanding the obscure Hadhabani (tribe) article [5].
  4. As Aintabli already said, this is not the traditional journey of a new user. This was their fifth edit, already editing/formatting like someone who has been here for some time [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my skills aren't greatest on wiki editing, but accusing someone of sock puppetry just because I edit pages (with sources) that those blocked users did doesn't make someone a sock puppet. Jackhanma69 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point according to you I'm sockpuppet of every user in Wikipedia hence I added sources from there to there and expanded some articles. This is invalid argument of accusing me being a sock puppet just because simply adding in references. Jackhanma69 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued by how it took Jackhanma69 to dispute the report this long given they have interacted with me (thanked) 4 minutes after my initial filing and would have seen the report with just a few clicks, but instead they have chosen to respond when the CU was declined, which restricts technical evidence. I'm sockpuppet of every user in Wikipedia hence I added sources is literally taking the above points out of context. Summary of the points are:
  • The account was created just 6 days after the latest sock I reported was blocked.
  • They edit the same intersection of topics. I did not provide any diffs for that as I thought this was easily verifiable, and I did not want to spend further time detailing a potential sock's actions to WP:DENY.
  • They edit in the same manner, making very major changes, either adding or removing, with the overwhelming majority of the cases lacking any explanation (Example: [7]). Compare that to the previous socks' edits. For example, Dêrsimî62's edit history [8], which is extremely similar to Jackhanma's.
  • They show all the signs of being older than an account that's been active for 4 months, or someone with an unusual learning curve + observational skills. Another example: In their fourteenth edit, they appear to know that maps should be sourced [9], something that newbies struggle with.
  • All of their edits are from the same type of device that all of the socks have been using.

Thinking over this again, I would ask any CU to rethink the decision to run a test on this account. Aintabli (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Check declined by a checkuser - VisualEditor usage explains the references, edit summaries is a drop in the water, no other diff based evidence, and CU is stale to any previous accounts. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]