Armaanaziz

Armaanaziz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User:Geographic.location was edit waring over the article Brahmanbaria. He wanted to move the article to new title. He even deleted comments of other users form the talk page of the article (diff and diff). Both times he left a very peculiar edit summary. This summary is probably copied from some other edit. After that, he was warned on his talk page not to remove other editors' comments [1]. After that, another user, Wikigeo.int made the same edit with exactly the same edit summary (diff). This user Wikigeo.int is also interesting because his user page [2] i an exact copy of the user page of User:Discospinster. He is obviously attempting to create an illusion of an established editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He even copied the whole user talk page of another editor to his own talk page ([3]) to create an illusion that he is am experienced editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Armaanaziz is also member of the same group. He should be blocked for impersonation and deceit (what is there in username policy). For more than a while I thought this fake Armaanaziz was the real Armanaziz. I think the real Armanaziz is unaware of his impersonator. – nafSadh did say 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Armaanaziz just remved the "blocked"tag from the user page of User:Wikigeo.int and reverted to the previous edit (see: [10]). Vanjagenije (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He illegitimately created pages in null userspace [11] under User:Armanaaziz/ which is yet another misspell of Armanaziz. – nafSadh did say 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am disturbed to see "Armaanaziz" and "Armanaaziz" accounts being used as sockpuppets. I confirm that I have nothing to do with creation of these accounts - and the user who created them is potentially trying to misguide others users - Arman (Talk) 09:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you input. It is not clear what the username policy suggests about these. But such deceitful names should better not be allowed. – nafSadh did say 11:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar usernames are in fact not allowed and are prevented to some extent by a filter. This one seems to have slipped through under the radar. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the problem with Armanaziz, I protected two doppelganger accounts of mine Nafsaadh and Naafsadh yesterday. While, nafSadh was disallowed, I was still able to create these two signon. I don't know the exact algorithm but it is not a very strong filter. – nafSadh did say 17:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Comment:This user copied his entire user page and user talk page from another editor to give an impression of the experienced editor. Why can't you believe that he also copied edit summary from other editors' edits for the same purpose? By the way, Geographic.location was created on 6 December [12] and Wikigeo.int on 8 December [13]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I just rev'deleted this edit as a copyright infringement, and you're right that I mixed up the two account creation dates. Anyhow, if Wikigeo just copied another editor's summaries that wouldn't be sockpuppetry. De728631 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks againg for finding all the little details. I noticed the similarity to Spiderjerky's page yesterday but wasn't really sure about it. But now that I've seen the spider animation I'm sure that this page was also created in a copy&paste style to mimic an established user. I have now also blocked Wikinga and Armaanaziz (note the double a). Given that Armaanaziz is the oldest involved account I have also selected him as the sockmaster, so maybe the case page should be moved to another name. I'll leave that to the clerks though.
Given that ever more suspect accounts are surfacing in this case I'm requesting a checkuser for sleepers. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 No sleepers immediately visible looks like you got them all. For the record all the blocked accounts above are  Confirmed. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP user made just two edits, both of which are identical to edits made by this sockmaster. Comapre this with this: it's identical disruptive edit. Compare this and this. Both edits are identical. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 IP blocked by Anna Frodesiak. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Nothing more to do here, ( No comment with respect to IP address(es)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This account was registered an hour ago. First edit made by this account was to remove the sockpuppetry template from the User:Armaanaziz page and to reinstate the previous version of the user page [22]. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

12 January 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This appears to be a case of evading a block and perpetuating a hoax.

One thread of a hoax

23 October 2014

7 November 2014

17 December 2014

What makes Shahbazpur Town, Bangladesh a hoax (the long version)
Origins of a hoax

There's one more article to note, Shahbazpur Town (without the disambiguation "Bangladesh"). Eng Mahim created it on 25 February 2013 with no sources. The username bears some similarity to a set of other names who have edited the same group of closely related articles: Mahim.5777, Mamun.5777, Mishel.margo, and Engmishel, the latter a blocked sockpuppet of Armaanaziz. Armaanaziz began editing it in January 2014.

After Armaanaziz was blocked, several regular contributors to WikiProject Bangladesh made an effort to clean up the article, such as Sminthopsis84, who moved it to Shahbazpur Union, Sarail. Their good work was always undone, such as by these edits by Mishel.margo and this move by Asia.softtouch with the comment "Shahbazpur Town gets more Google hits, I can't really find evidence it's offically called Shahbazpur Union, Sarail". Indruraz later used the exact same phrasing in this move.

The tentacles of the hoax were spread through the following articles:

Sminthopsis84 also tried to clean up the latter article in this edit, but was reverted by Indruraz in this edit.

How do we know Shahbazpur Town is a hoax?

There is a Shahbazpur Union in Sarail Upazila of Brahmanbaria District. A Union Parishad (union for short), is a fourth-level administrative district. The closest equivalent might be a civil parish in the UK. It's typically lower level than a county in the US. Within the union are several mauzas (roughly speaking villages) one of which is also called Shahbazpur. There is no Shahbazpur Town. In Bangladesh, a population centre must be a pourashava (municipal corporation) in order to be a town. There are none in Sarail Upazila.

Claiming that Shahbazpur is a town when it isn't may be an attempt to inflate its importance. Other assertions in the Shahbazpur articles also suggest intentional exaggeration, such as the claim that literacy is 74% (2011 census says 47.1% in the union, 49.2% in the village), or the claim of a population of 135,288 (2011 census says 29,757 for the entire union).

Reliable sources are unanimous that it is a union but not a town:

Extensive searches of the usual Google types and of various newspaper databases found no evidence that Shahbazpur's status has changed in the last few years; no matches for "Shahbazpur Town" beyond wiki mirrors, blogs, and the like.

The sources cited in the articles have been: Wikipedia, blogs and other self-published sources, and "sources" that don't pan out. Two of three removed yesterday were about entirely different subjects, and the third made a passing mention of Shahbazpur as it was in 1971, but did not support the content where cited. One of Shahbazpur Town, Bangladesh's current references is typical:

  • "Shahbazpur Town is a oldest ferry terminal port area in Bangladesh". The Sydney Morning Herald. 10 November 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-10.
Sounds reliable and on-point, right? Except that The Sydney Morning Herald has never published any such story. The url links to a collage photograph on commons uploaded by Armaanaziz and later edited by Minhaz.de. Is it at least a photo of Shahbazpur? The image captioned "shahbazpur port" is actually a left-right flip of commons File:PORT CTG TAZMEEM.JPG, a photograph of a port 200 km away from Shahbazpur Union.
Attempting to dismantle the hoax

11 January 2016

12 January 2016

-- Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 March 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IPs and sleeper have begun re-implementing sockmaster's move vandalism:

Old sockpuppetry

Vandalism by socks was undone in connection with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaanaziz/Archive#12 January 2016

Today

IP's unexplained change reverted by David.moreno72

In fact, User:Asia1750 is a page Asia.softtouch has redirected to User:Asia.softtouch, a redirect was left, no histmerge is going on, and Dr. Blofeld's original topic was Anailkota, not Shahbazpur Town. Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Looks like a sleeper. Like earlier socks, is fixated on hijacking Anailkota, an article by Dr. Blofeld about a village in Chandpur District, replacing its content with a write-up about Shahbazpur Town, Bangladesh, and moving it to that title. Their purpose is unclear, since Shahbazpur, Brahmanbaria already exists and describes the same settlement.

Whether they are being intentionally disruptive, or merely disruptive through incompetence, is unclear. Once they are blocked and the articles have been returned to their proper places with their proper content, the targets should probably be indefinitely move protected so that we don't have to go through this same mop-up every few years. -- Worldbruce (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment -

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

MargNely and Nmbd1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are confirmed to each but Red X Unrelated to the master based on the old technical data I have.  Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More