Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-10

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments14 people in discussion

Tubus@az.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: MrArifnajafov (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Tubus (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Tubus voted in favor of MrArifnajafov in voting for removal of his admin flag. And according to rules it is forbidden for candidates to vote for themselves. I ask you as a bureaucrat of azwiki.--Sortilegus (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think they are the same person? Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ruslik, first of all because Tubus started to edit in Wikipedia since MrArifnajafov stopped his activity more than one year ago. In last few days while voting is ongoing MrArifnajafov started to edit, but Tubus is not active on the same days. Also their manner of editing and communication looks similar. Both of them are making some mistakes in articles specific for them. We don't know really, but MrArifnajafov says that he is living in Germany. Maybe it also can help you in identification of sock. Voting ended one hour ago and as a result MrArifnajafov keeps sysop flag by 1 vote difference. So this request is very important to come to a final decision. I'm an administrator in az-wiki. Thank you in advance.--Wertuose (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wertuose in all points. And want to inform you that Tubus's vote decides the fate of admin flag.--Sortilegus (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed @Sortilegus and Wertuose: I didn't see any others. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst! --►Cekli 829 04:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Arn1387@fa.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Arn1387 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Robot-eslahgar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Reza.tarin (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Ehtejaj (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: This AfD

Reason(s): The accounts (except the first one) has been created recently. They all appeared suddenly in the above AfD and all unanimously with a joint rationale for deletion of the article. They look ducks/doppelgangers to me and I will block them soon. But this request is for the first user, which has some interests (or perhaps CoI) in the article to be kept and just want to be sure if the accounts belongs to him. Thanks in advance. Mehran^Debate 10:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed Robohasf, Arn1387, Ehtejaj
Possible Robot-eslahgar
Unlikely Reza.tarin

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mehran^Debate 14:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Anwar Shahjahan@bn.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: আনোয়ার শাহজাহান (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); AmaderGolapgonj (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Masum2010 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Same edit patterns, interest in the same subject and repeatedly putting self-published sources to articles. I wonder if they are the same person. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to know whether they are the same person to manage poor or abusive editing. We need a reason that effects how we manage the problems and how knowing this information better informs (y)our actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Got your point. Will deal the problem locally. Thank you for your time ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Alireza.fzd@fa.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Alireza.fzd (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Perzhi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: fa:User talk:Perzhi, fa:User talk:Alireza.fzd

Reason(s): User:پارسا آملی had been blocked indefinitely due to his consecutive Sockpuppetry and his last known SP is User:Alireza.fzd. Recently we decided to give him a chance and put a topic ban for him instead of blocking his accounts. But before that, there is another suspicious account (fa:User:Perzhi) editing now and he denies to be himself. They have similar manner of editing and similar field of interest. The topic ban may be revoked if they are the same. Also please specify the other SPs if there are. Thanks in advance. Mehran^Debate 06:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated Last time that I can see an evident account shared is early September, and I am not even certain that it edited, and I didn't chase further. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Satdeep gill@hi.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Satdeep gill (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Indian Police Force (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): User1 is a proactive contributor on the ongoing "Monuments of Spain Challenge" for which a page is created on Meta as well. However in his zeal to outdo other users, he created a sockpuppet # 2. Sockpuppet # 2 resorted to a deletion request for for an article created by me on Hindi Wikipedia as seen here [1] today. He backtracked on being told everything is fine see here [2]. Also noted are his edits on the Meta page where in an unauthorised manner he tried to reduce my points and again backtracked here [3].

One more thing to highlight the link of these two accounts: the message of User # 2 on the Editathon coordinator's page User_talk:B25es#Hello_Again. The sockpuppetry with malacious intentions is thus present on Hindi Wikipedia and Meta.

I am also troubled by user User # 1's other unproductive activities such as renaming of my articles on Hindi Wikipedia such as see here [4]. Please help me is overcoming this sockpuppetry and harassment of a fellow editor. --Muzammil (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hindustanilanguage: As this involves you, I would prefer that there is a discussion among hiWP admins and a referral be made a non-involved party only if there is a necessary reason for a CU. If the user accounts are problematic, then deal with them, they don't need to be checkuser'd. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is I didn't saw that account is problematic in there edits but as things are going on outside hiwiki also. These things are about hiwiki, so it is not a good thing to do activities outside before local discussion. These are started by Satdeep gill. By hiwiki rules if there is any account which is making shock-puppet are not allowed. This activity gives permanent ban to the user, so I think we this can be done if there is no problem regarding meta-rules.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i apologize for creating a sock puppet. I did that because i personally know Muzammil and I didn't want to offend him. First according to the rules of the competition we are supposed to add 1/3 points for lists but he didnt do that. About the article i proposed for deletion. Here check out the opening sentence of the article. मदीना अज़हरा (अरबी में: مدينة الزهراء Madinat AZ-ज़हरा: शाब्दिक अर्थ "फूल का शहर") महल-शहर के खंडहर का नाम है जिसे अरब मुस्लिम मध्ययुगीन कोरदोबा के उमय्यद ख़लीफ़ा अब्द-अर-रहमान तृतीय अल नासिर (912 -961) ने कोरदोबा के पश्चिमी सरहद पर स्पेन में स्थित है, बनाया था। Well this seemed useless to me. But then i reverted both my edits because i thought it would be good for the organizers to look into it. As for the article, when i read more of it, later on it was a bit okay. Well i didnt know about the policy on Hindi Wiki about sock puppet. Well some editor told me that i can create sock puppet provided there should not be vandalism. And for what you are calling unproductive edit please see the spanish article about that. I only redirected it to the appropriate name. --Satdeep gill (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly and grammatically correct "महल-शहर के खंडहर का नाम है जिसे अरब मुस्लिम मध्ययुगीन कोरदोबा के उमय्यद ख़लीफ़ा अब्द-अर-रहमान तृतीय अल नासिर (912 -961) ने कोरदोबा के पश्चिमी सरहद पर स्पेन में स्थित है..." except for probably Medinat-Az which was missed in translation - unlike the extensive use of peculiar words such as उसारी used by Satdeep Gill and his friend Parveer Garewal which are incomprehensible to Hindi users because of Punjabi origin - A total of 40 uses as of now.

There are also cases when your friend Parveer Singh left Gurmukhi text in Hindi articles. please clean the mess.

As per my understanding Numantia can be written as Numancia or Numantia - either ways t or s based on Anglo-Spanish sounds, so there is no need for any intervention. --Muzammil (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well he is my friend, that doesnt mean i am responsible for his edits. Well the sentence is not correct. Let someone else decide. But the main question is what do you want me to do? I redirected that according to my understanding. Maybe i am wrong. Well i apologize for everything. What should i do now ?--Satdeep gill (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ːHello all. I'm Manoj Khurana and am a reviewer on Hindi Wikipedia. Both Muzammil & Satdeep are eminent contributors of Hindi Wiki and I find this discussion very unfortunate. Both should have talked to each other first as I find both of these eminent members wise enough. Now that Satdeep has accepted his mistake, this matter should be put to rest immediately. As far as Punjabi touch in Hindi wiki is concerned, I've already done some cleansing and undertake to review the contributions of the both Praveer & Satdeep. Request all of you to please continue the good work on hindi wiki. We already have a dearth of good contributors over there and we can not afford demotivating any member. This matter may be closed here itself. Regards. --Manojkhurana (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Marking this as Not done. Since Satdeep gill has accepted that he created a sock puppet, there is no need of CU investigation. Please discuss this matter locally and resolve it. Regards--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser is a tool, not a solution. This is why communities need to learn to discuss and resolve issues prior to jumping to checkuser as that just finds information, and doesn't resolves issues. Glad that a discussion was able to take place, though hope that all future cases are able to be done on your wiki rather than in front of a global audience. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For old times' sake@nl.wikimedia

Status: Done

List of users: For old times' sake ([[; Special:Contributions/For old times' sake|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/For old times' sake|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Mother's love ([[; Special:Contributions/Mother's love|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Mother's love|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log

Reason(s): User For old times' sake was blocked for disruptive behavior on wmnlwiki. After the block was set, a new user (Mother's love) appeared who posted a link to a discussion where For old times' sake was involved to. Since this could be block evading, a checkuser to check if this is the blocked user would be preferred. Thanks, JurgenNL (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Doing... Trijnstel_talk 12:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. Trijnstel_talk 13:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)