Steward requests/Checkuser/2015-04

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Latest comment: 11 years ago63 comments18 people in discussion

CRCHF@ zh-yue.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: CRCHF (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pa4Dk7 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); KRVKEE14 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Hn471 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); SM5DDRdn6 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 183.60.183.16 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: w:zh-yue:Talk:洲頭嘴

Reason(s):

Support team of CRCHF. They keep suppourt CRCHF and they are junior user but actively participate in the discussion. User Hn471's first edit was support CRCHF who is create account before 8 minutes. User Pa4Dk7 honestly said he is CRCHF.DannyChan (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@DannyChan: Could you please elaborate a bit what's going on and why is this checkuser needed? We need to know, for example, why do you suspect that these accounts belong to the same user and why is that a violation of the policy or other innapropriate behaviour. We have some chinese-speaking stewards such as Jusjih that can help you. Best regards. -- M\A 14:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That means you need to explain to them what's happening in there, and tell them in English. In general most stewards in the Meta are understanding in English, and only few of them know the Cantonese or Chinese language. Shinjiman (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Results

Pa4Dk7, KRVKEE14 and SM5DDRdn6 are in my opinion Likely socks of CRCHF.
Hn471 is in my opinion Unlikely

-- M\A 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pastho Wikipedia

Khangul@pswiki

Status: Done

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

CU log
Discussion: None.

Reason(s): On Pashto Wikipedia, I think the ps:user:Khangul is using multiple accounts as sock-puppets to Irritate other users , Remember that the Khangul is also administrator on Pashto Wikipedia but he does not let us work on Wikipedia and always discourage other users, So please Investigate him that Is Khangul using multiple accounts or not? If he is using then I request to block his IP and account Globally

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by UsmanKhan (talk)

@Khangul: Do you have a comment about the accusation? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think its just a nonsense what Mr. UsmanKhan has been claiming. He is just doing this to wrongly stamp me. I have a good reputation since the very first edit I have made in 2009. I have made over 10000 edits and helped a lot of other users whenever they were in need of any assistance. Check the Pashto wiki statistics and you will find out that I have been one of the key editor of the website. After I have commented and pointed several mistakes and unhealthy habits of Mr. UsmanKhan who originally is not a native Pashto speaker (Thats obvious from his writings), thus he has no other reason but to come and complain about the use of multiple accounts, which is baseless claim. Previously other vandalizers have tried the same but one should not only claim but also come up with a proof. --Khangul (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry for Weak English). Khangul has no good reputation , you can ask from other Admins on Pashto Wikipedia, They will tell you the reality of Khangul. He has been always harassing and discouraging other users from different accounts. I am native Pashto speaker you may ask other Admins on Pashto as well as Urdu Wikipedia, they all know me very well. I would also mention that the following accounts also belongs to Khangul and he voted for his adminship from these sock-puppets accounts :

--UsmanKhann (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I warned him more than three times but still he is using sock puppets --UsmanKhann (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed ANBI / Khangul / Afghanwrites / Zarghona / احمد مجیب بياباني

This is a troubling relationship between accounts, and the fact that one administrator blocks another. I will bringing this matter to the attention of stewards. @ANBI and Khangul: will you please account for this editing behaviour. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment In another discussion at meta, Khangul associates some, to all, of these other accounts utilising the same connectivity / equipment. This could be the case, and checkuser would not be the tool that would resolve such a claim, compared with something like conversation style, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

UsmanKhan@pswiki

Status: Done

List of users: UsmanKhan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); PashtoLover (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Adjutor101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Adjutor102 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Paktyan101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lewaal101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); UsmanPathanKhan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: None.

Reason(s): The above mentioned user has come from Urdu Wikipedia, He has made some edits, previously warned several times not to vandalize Pashto Wikipedia and stop destructive actions. That's why he started complaining about me. Now blocked from Pashto wikipedia. It is kindly requested to follow his movements in other wikis and stop him/her from further damages to other wikipedias. I also think that he himself has been using multiple accounts in order to project his ideas and views as that of a groups. , I think the ps:user:UsmanKhan is using multiple accounts as sock-puppets to try to project his ideas as if it belongs to several persons. So please Investigate him that If UsmanKhan using multiple accounts or not? He has been blocked from Pashto Wikipedia and if his reputation as a vandalizer is proved in other wikipedias as well then its best to block his IP and account Globally.

--Khangul (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@UsmanKhan: Do you wish to comment on the accusation. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting that in this sort of circumstance that I am more likely to refuse both, or accept both. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that we need more dispute resolution here rather than CU so people could stop pointing fingers at each other. -- M\A 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Actually my English is weak so sorry for that). I would say that You are free to investigate both (me and Khangul) , After inverstigation you will see that I am using only one account that is UsmanKhan, all the other accounts that khangul has mentioned above are not mine , You can block all the above accounts, I am using only one account UsmanKhan.Actually Khangul has already blocked those accounts.Now Khangul has started propaganda against me just because I told him to not use multiple accounts. He also blocked me many times without any reason but Fortunately when I reported the issue to other admins they unblocked me.(Once Again sorry for weak English).--UsmanKhann (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

lathough, i dont know abut the policy of using multiple accounts, but im here to say that Mr Khangul and Usman Khan are from hardworking users. they are doing pretty will. and we proud of them, now if they use multiple accounts for good or bad usage, its stewards duty to check both of them, if Usman Khan is using Multiple accounts, as khangul claimed above, so he should be warn strongly and condemn his action. and if Khangul is using multiple accounts (as Usman Khan claimed), the same rule must be applied on him too.

Confirmed عثمان منصور انصاري / UsmanKhan

Comment In another discussion at meta, UsmanKhan indicates other of these accounts utilising the same connectivity / equipment. This could be the case, and checkuser would not be the tool that would resolve such a claim, compared with something like conversation style, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly PashtoLover / Adjutor101 / Adjutor102 / Paktyan101 / Lewaal101 are all associated. There is no evidence that the other accounts are associated with an existing psWP account, though the person behind the account has taken specific measures to edit from hosted services effectively obscuring any relationship. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

what was the prob between them!?

hello to all respected stewards!

im Usman Mansoor ansari, one of Ps wiki admin. as i always noticed khangul, he just act like Mullah Muhammad Omar (Taliban Leader). instead helping newly reqruited user by me or others to ps wiki, he (khangul) always delete their contribution without nominating the page for deletion or fast deletion. as we both are admin, he several time deleted my contributions, articles, templates etc without informing me or at-least to write a single word or something in the talkpage of deleted article. the main problem was that usman khan is using deference accent of dialect of Pashto language, which is not acceptable (due to Khangul's saying). both of them blaming each other for using multiple accounts, coz of that khangul used his rights and blocked Usman Khan.

now let me share something abut US and UK english:

Full stop: Meaning:
- US english: the state of automobiles barely moving in heavy traffic (also, a "dead stop").
- UK english: punctuation mark used at the end of a sentence, sometimes used in speech for emphasis ("Whom does he support? Arsenal, full stop!") (US: period, q.v.).
frog: meaning:

- French person (insulting slang)*
- (Slang) A US Navy SEAL[citation needed]. Shortened from "Frogman"
beaver: meaning:
- female vagina (slang)
- beard; a bearded man (archaic slang).

khangul alway blame usman khan for using Peshawri pashto Dialect. he was always forced to use use afghani pashto dialect, but unfortunately in afghanistan we have three dialects of pashto language: eastern dialect, Kandahari dialect, central dialect. Kandahari pashto speakers and writers trying to force their dialect as a pure dialect, eastren region force their one on others. now here in pashto wiki: we are here to help others, correct their mistakes, every newly created article is being edited by duzen users. if usman khan make mistake, we are here to replace his mistakes. but blocking or deleting his entire user-page is not the solution.

last night, i have restored deleted userpage, talk page of Usman Khan which was deleted by Khangul. i have provided a short list of usman Khans contributions, list of his articles, templates, modules. here is the link: a short list of usman Khan's contributions in pashto wiki

thanks billinghurst and MarcoAurelio for being around. i always see ur works in wiki projects, its highly appreciated. god bless the queen, god bless both of you. :) --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note: recently i have visited Usman Khan's talkpage, but unfortunate it was deleted, blocked by Khangul once again. just for restoring his talkpage, Khangul acted like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, he blocked my IP address too. and prevented me forever to contribute in wiki. is it logical for one admin to prevent and block another admin from contribution.

i kindly request the stewards to plz talk a responsible action against this Khangul, and release pashto wiki and its users from his dictatorship forever.

note: the reason for which he blocked me is attached to this comment.

best regards --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you can see that Khangul has blocked not only me but also another Pashto Wikipedia Adim (عثمان منصور انصاري), Now what would you say about this person? I request Stewards to take notice of this person, He has destructed Pashto Wikipedia. He has also blocked many new user who needed guidance , not blocking.And I think tomorrow Khangul will also start blocking Bureaucrats--UsmanKhann (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr Usman Mansoor Ansari (عثمان منصور انصاري) & Usman Khan, who both share the same name are campaigning to stigmatize me (Khangul). The best proof is his complain above, first calling me Mullah Omar (Taliban Leader), then Saddam Hussein and then Muammar Gaddafi and at last dictator. It is a ridiculous arguments. Usman Khan was previously warned not to vandalize Pashto wikipedia articles. He showed no will of compromise. Then as عثمان منصور انصاري himself mentioned once in my talk page he and Usman Khan are good friends and based on their friendship they support each others cause and arguments. According to one of the discussions in Pashto, عثمان منصور انصاري said I urged my friend to come from Urdu wikipedia and told him to make edits in Pashto wikipedia, now since he has come here and he wants to write anything nobody should say anything. That is again very strange that someone who does not have Pashto as their first language comes to Pashto wikipedia and when I guide him how one writes pronouns correctly in Pashto, he is not only denying but saying this is how I write it either like it or not. The other Problem was rigorously making of new templates with wrong grammar, wrong spelling and wrong syntax. Being an admin of the website, عثمان منصور انصاري has misused his rights, he is deliberately copying and pasting the articles with reserved copy rights. He is directly pasting religious articles that their writers are not consulted. He is also copying and pasting scholarly works of other writers and publish it in openly source Wikipedia. A good example of such article is the one about microbiology. Its writer does not yet know about that his article has been published in Pashto wikipedia without any credits given to him. Usman Mansoor Ansari (عثمان منصور انصاري) has kept grudges against me as once i criticized him on publishing such articles and also deleted some of the copy righted materials that he had published without permission. I just see these complains as some sort of conspiracy against me to put me down as an admin. I have always served Pashto wikipedia with sincerity. I have contributed over 10000 edits and since 2009 I am one of the few users who has put so much effort in bringing Pashto wikipedia to where it stands now. When I see such users like Usman Khan and Usman Mansoor Ansari (عثمان منصور انصاري) who doesnt understand the language of logic and they dont compromise and cooperate in building a community then they deserve to be blocked. Since such arguments and disagreements are new in Pashto wikipedia and there has never been any of such cases, another admin in Pashto wikipedia has proposed for a policy and a set of rules to be set. This is a new proposal and the community will set new guidelines on whom should be blocked, what should be done with those who vandalize wikipedia, what should be kept in mind when writing and publishing an article for Pashto wikipedia. What Usman Mansoor Ansari (عثمان منصور انصاري) has described about the language and its accent its nothing but a bad joke. You can read about the different accents and dialects of Pashto language online there are lots of scholarly works. We follow the standards set by the only linguist of Pashto language Prof. doctorate Mujawer Ahmad Zyar. It is difficult for non-native Pashto speakers to understand what kind of disagreements and oppositions there has been between me and the double Usmans. What they claim is nothing but false arguments to show their claim genuine and to make the discussions longer and waste time of other users and admins. I recommend that this matter be discussed on the community basis and thus decided by democratic means at Pashto wikipedia and let the bureaucrat resolve this matter. --Khangul (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I now believe that this matter is beyond a community level response where @Khangul: and @ANBI: (the bureaucrat) have an interwined relationship either as being the same person or by being related in sharing resources, and to my understanding this relationship is not publicly noted. That an administrator blocks another administrator when only two are active is deeply problematic, and does not lead to an independent review.

Proposed solution that I have put to stewards is an immediate desysop and debureaucrat of all advanced rightsholders in Pashto Wikipedia, and an embargo on appointments for six months to enable to community to refill. Then we will undertake a community-based approach to rights, and if this comes to a community vote we need to have an awareness of sockpuppetry.

Further discussion should take place at Stewards' noticeboard as the checkuser component is complete. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pxxppalki@fi.wikisource

Status: Done

List of users: Pxxppalki (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pekkamiesmies (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pxossx (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Pxxosx (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Grubsends (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion:

Reason(s): Any connection between the local vandal accounts? If any, can this be addressed by blocking the IP? Pxos (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Results

The following accounts are Confirmed:

Puffyonset
Pxxppalki
Pekkamiesmies
Pxossx
Pxxosx
Lointunnuksentänne
Grubsends

Some of them are already blocked, but I didn't checked for how long. One was blocked previously, but the block expired. IP block may be done, please mail me for details. Best regards. -- M\A 10:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

49.126.0.42@hi.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: 49.126.0.42 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.31 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.38 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.39 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.36 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.34 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 49.126.0.32 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion:

Reason(s): These ip's made similar vandalism on hi.wikipedi in last few days. user:Aldnonymous has blocked these ips on the request of hiwiki users. But it looks like planned strategy of some hiwiki user. Can you please check, whether any active hiwiki user is associated with these ip's.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Declined because we can not link accounts to IP addresses except on few cases and I feel this is not one of them. Please ask an administrator to block 49.126.0.0/24 for some time, which is the source of the problem. If the vandalism continues, please consider setting an abuse filter or expanding the block range. The IPs are from Nepal as public WHOIS data shows, if that's of any help. Best regards. -- M\A 10:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it is sufficient for us.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Krisi_tranchev.1999@bg.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Krisi tranchev.1999 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 89.185.229.220 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); 216.224.184.61 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: None.

Reason(s): An anonymous person (via open proxies) keeps revealing the full real name and location of another contibutor bg:w:User:Batman tas. The latter explicitely requested that his real name should not be revealed. As this has happened before in the exact same manner, I'd like a confirmation that the offender is the same. --Петър Петров (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We generally do not associate specific IP addresses with registered accounts. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

These two IP addresses are proxies, one in Czech Republic, the other in USA. --Петър Петров (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Петър Петров: If the IP addresses are problematic then block them. The chances of a user who is abusing editing through them is slim, so about the only chance of a confirmation is through a slip-up. Do you really wish for us to continue? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP addresses were blocked immediately back then. There were no recent incidents with that user. I will request help again if need arises. Consider this request withdrawn. Thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed as Not done. -- M\A 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seendgay@pswiki

Status: Done

List of users: UsmanKhan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); PashtoLover (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Adjutor101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Adjutor102 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Paktyan101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Lewaal101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); UsmanPathanKhan (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); عثمان خان شاہ (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); عثمان منصور انصاري (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: None.

Reason(s): The above mentioned user has made suspicious acts that resemble to those of the blocked users that constantly come and vandalize Pashto Wikipedia. Kindly check if this username is related to any of the others listed above --Khangul (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: This is obviously related to #Pastho Wikipedia above. In light of your recent findings and discussion ongoing at SN you may wish to decide on this one. -- M\A 09:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Also not sure that I am comfortable with your choice of words. A different point of view is being exhibited, and you classify it as vandalism. More people have points of view and it is these people at fault. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

NZcat@species.wikimedia.org

Status: Not done

List of users: Stho002 ([[; Special:Contributions/Stho002|contr]] · [[; Special:DeletedContributions/Stho002|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion: local discussion

Reason(s): Since User:Stho002 has a history of (at least 4) sock puppets 10 February 2015 1 February 2015, and the new user species:User:NZcats only activity was to revert 30 of my edits before I blocked the account, at the same day when User:Stho002 once again today questioned my clean up of his New Zealand categories, following consenus at the Wikispecies community it is possible that this is yet one more sock puppet, especially when considering the name NZcat. NZcat was registered on EnWp 2015-04-19 23:13:35, and started to revert my clean ups 2015-04-19 23:14:51, and was blocked by me 2015-04-19T23:20:1, which indicates that this may even be a Bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing which is clear is that DanKoehl is once again making procedural errors. He has requested CU after stating that TWO more admins were required for support, but only ONE more has currently given support! See this diff Stho002 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: Please, count again. Both Faendalimas and MPF obviously support a CU request. Both are admins. One and one is two. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: What kind of idiot are you? Koehl said 'Yes we can, if another two admins support your request' [my bold]. He then made the CU request after just MPF added his support. Now let me see, 0 plus 1 equals 1, not 2 (at least according to my maths) ... Stho002 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, DanKoehl is in breach of CU policy, whereby [quote]The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute[unquote]. Although this is not precisely defined, it is clear what is going on here in the broader context. For one thing, DanKoehl is currently attempting to rewrite local CU policy to suit his agenda better, while conveniently ignoring it for the purposes of the CU request above. Secondly, he has just nominated MPF for WS crat! MPF is permanently banned from enWP, and long ago set himself up as one of my fiercest opponents, even publicly accusing me of copyright violation in a nasty and defamatory/libelous attack on the WS VP. Such a person is clearly unsuitable to be a crat, but DanKoehl is simply promoting all my enemies, with reckless disregard for the good of the project ... Stho002 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Im not commenting the number unvalid claims and personal attacks on my person, but need to state that MPF is not at all permanently banned on EnWp. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, his most recent edit there was in 20 January 2008, and his second to last edit was this. Perhaps DanKoehl would care to explain? Stho002 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this, I see that MPF isn't blocked, but only because he jumped before he was pushed. Clearly, he was not confident that an RfC would clear him of any wrongdoing, so he left, never to return. So, I was technically incorrect to say that he was blocked, but it amounts to the same thing ... Stho002 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: DanKoehl misquotes me by using the term 'banned'. I said 'blocked'. DanKoehl probably doesn't know the difference ... Stho002 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a duck to me you don't need CU to deal with problematic editors. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rrjedha@sq.wikipedia

Status: Not done

List of users: Rrjedha (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Koka11 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion:

Reason(s): Hi! I'm Mr. Pseudo an administrator on sq.wiki (Albanian) (link). I have given different warnings to Rrjedha and Koka11 about their harmful edits (damage in the page structure on different articles + adding not reliable sources + other linguistic deficiency problems); I have suggested them different times to make some experience before editing but I haven't seen any constructive reaction - so I temporally (2 weeks) blocked User Rrjedha (he has been blocked 2 times before, once 3 months and once 1 month, by another admin). Suddenly appears User Koka11 and starts editing. They have a very long common edit history (like this article here) and I have seen Koka11 review some edits of User Rrjedha. Seeing them alternate each other, I suspect whether the accounts are controlled by the same person. (Another administrator has my same suspicion, but since he doesn't speak, or understand English, I'm speaking for him too.). Another thing in common that makes the suspicion grow is the fact that they make the same editing errors, sometimes writing in capitalized letters, sometimes bold-ing text unnecessarily etc. I would like a response. If the check is positive that means that he is escaping the block. --Mr.Pseudo ^{Don't talk to me} 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I just saw that another admin of sq.wiki has made the same request some weeks ago here. However I think you should consider my resuest independenlty of that.--Mr.Pseudo ^{Don't talk to me} 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a duck to me - If you say they behave the same way, write the same way, etc., the odds of both accounts being controlled by the same user are very high. -- M\A 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I learn new things on wiki, everyday. Well, I should have done it before, but i just checked en:User:Rrjedha on en.wiki, and he presents himself with the name Nijazi Ramadani, that is the same name he has put on his Koka11 account on the sq.wiki. I consder it a closed issue - I now have the certainty. I didnt want to block it without beeing certain just because we are a small community... Thnx for yout time!--Mr.Pseudo ^{Don't talk to me} 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Pseudo: We all learn new things every day :-) Feel free to come back to us if you need our assistance again. Best regards. -- M\A 19:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed - issue resolved without the need of CU evidence. -- M\A 19:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ΑΝώΔυΝος@el.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: ΑΝώΔυΝος (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Leelee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Greekpulpmaniac (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

CU log
Discussion:

Reason(s):

User ΑΝώΔυΝος had created the article that is being discussed for deletion at w:el:Συζήτηση:Κατοχή_του_ελλαδικού_χώρου_1453-1821/Πρόταση_διαγραφής.
User Leelee has stated in the past, and ΑΝώΔυΝος confirmed that she is his young daughter, although the user's language in discussions suggested an older person. The user has participated in the above discussion.
User Greekpulpmaniac has the same editing pattern with ΑΝώΔυΝος, and in fact he has written an article about ΑΝώΔυΝος (w:el:Νίκος Νικολαΐδης (συγγραφέας)). ΑΝώΔυΝος had long ago confirmed that he is the article's subject (Νίκος Νικολαΐδης) but denied that Greekpulpmaniac is himself. The user has participated in the above discussion.

It was suggested by users that Leelee and Greekpulpmaniac are meat puppets of ΑΝώΔυΝος. Users Leelee and Greekpulpmaniac, edit only while ΑΝώΔυΝος is on a wiki-break or just to support him. I believe that they are simply his sock puppets.

-Geraki ^T_L 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Leelee and Greekpulpmaniac are surely the same person. It's

Likely that they are connected with ΑΝώΔυΝος. einsbor _talk 15:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Creativesciber101, Diplomatic123, Iamtushar107, Sufidisciple, Sufifollower@bn.wikipedia

Status: Done

List of users: Creativesciber101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Diplomatic123 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Iamtushar107 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sufidisciple (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser); Sufifollower (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Same edit patterns, articles edit, interest in the same subject and putting promotional sources to articles. I wonder if they are the same person! Moheen Reeyad (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Pre-check note: Creativesciber101 is Stale. Data has expired for this account. We won't be able to check. -- M\A 08:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional information needed @Moheen Reeyad: Can you please explain to us why the edits are problematic? Which policies are they violating with their behaviour? This is for us to assess the need for the CU. Thank you. -- M\A 08:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Few days ago a page named bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নিবন্ধ অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা/আহমদ উল্লাহ মাইজভান্ডারীর খলিফা was nominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as it was an non-encyclopedic article. This article was created by User:Sufidisciple. After that, these users opposing against the deletion, without any explanation. And they are acting similarly, their edit pattern is same also. In before, four users (User:Creativesciber101, User:Diplomatic123, User:Iamtushar107, User:Sufifollower) among them have no edit in bn.wikipedia without this page. It seems like there accounts are created for this purpose of objecting the deletion. Thank you. --Moheen Reeyad (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Doing... -- MarcoAurelio 14:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Request Completed - results below -- MarcoAurelio 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Moheen Reeyad (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Results

As said above, Creativesciber101 is Stale; which means that the edit data is expired.
Confirmed: Diplomatic123, Iamtushar107 and Sufifollower.
Unlikely: Sufidisciple. I can not find from a technical point of view a strong relationship between the above accounts and this one, so better to err in the side of caution.

-- MarcoAurelio 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)