Steward requests/Checkuser/2013-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



All four accounts are  Confirmed socks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check! -Mys_721tx(talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed for Ίων and Έκτορας. Πάτρικ is stale. –BruTe talk 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help... --Glorious 93 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ιων@el.wikipedia (round 2)

Hi. The following users are  Confirmed :
  • Ιων
  • Μέρλιν
  • Έκτορας
No other user found. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour votre aide...--Glorious 93 (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Just a comment to the steward taking this, they are not our sv1 spambots, or at least doesn't look related, so xwiki check is not necessary. --Bencmq (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dffsertgryh
  • Dfgdgdgfd
  • Dfgfhrt5
  • Dfdv2wer are all  Confirmed
  • Also Fdgdr243; Dtgjtt; Fdgh98  Confirmed
  • Ghkjdk is probable
  • Dfdsfeg2 is probable
Ranges are all too busy to block QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. The following users are  Confirmed :
  • Copyangry7fcvc
  • Tapedladsdf
  • Coresplath
  • Maatpolonmr
  • Doorirondjkjmclsg
  • Bbtregervdfv
  • Slunknovelvbn
  • Plusspacere
  • Keysagain148
  • Clerkwheeltrie
  • Todaythink231499
  • Djruwqqqs
  • Quickbest5t6
Also please read the results of this check on the english Wikipedia.
Please note that this vandal is also editing a lot anonymously (using his IP directly).
I locked the users who were not already locked and forwarded data to enwiki checkusers, as it seems to be a long-term cross-wiki abuse. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


X mark.svg Not done Hi Makecat. I don't see enough evidence of bad behaving to check these users, and also not how they could be related to Wikinger. Please provide some more diffs explaining that. Also please note that we would prefer next requests to come from a local sysop. Thanks for your understanding. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


X mark.svg Not done. is a open proxy[2](blocked), and Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing--Shizhao (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please, log in and sign this request. Ruslik (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As instructed by you, after logging in, I reaffirm that I am Anunad Singh (अनुनाद सिंह). Please note that following comment by Bill William compton does not deny that the said user is a puppet but tries to stop investigation by giving irrelevant arguments. This also indicates that my suspicion has a very high probability of being true.-अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm.svgFacepalm, I don't understand this user! First, Anunad, you need to provide evidence of the sockpuppetry. Second, Sean opened account on February 11. I assigned him/her autopatrolled bit on February 19, after some 20 edits which were more constructive and positive than your's. X/he reverted vandalism, redirected articles to appropriate titles, uploaded a file, cleaned-up articles, etc; enough for me to judge his/her intentions. Autopatrolled right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers (like me).
  • Note to checkuse: this user has asked to de-sysop an admin (me) just because I removed his copyright violations from an article, which was notified to us (on admin noticeboard) by an OTRS volunteer. His proposal is invalid because according to Hindi Wikipedia policy adminship can be removed involuntarily only in cases of clear abuse.--Bill william compton (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fishing CheckUser is not for fishingbillinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact that the person requested (अनुनाद सिंह) has opened a proposal for a suspect's removal does not diminish the need for such a request (checkuser). I hereby request to reopen this and do the checkuser soon. Because the person which may be a sock-puppet is actively directing the direction of debates on, and voting in critical proposals too. Turning down this request would amount to letting many other evils continue. So better to remove the doubts, rather than further increasing them. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns of edits of at least two of the said users strongly match and this is enough evidence from our side, provided the fact that the person is being swiftly given rights strengthens it, and culmination is the participation by him in debates on topics on which he is not experienced at all (provided if he is a fresh user, but if sock puppet then of course he has experience). Other evidences can only be given by the test. And now user:SeanZCampbell is asking for blocking of the requester on Hindi wiki. Such a strong reaction on Checkuser request?? I am not here to defend anybody. But it is very less costly to check those users than letting a useful user being blocked by them. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hindi wiki policy, sockpuppets are not allowed.
Evidences supporting request:
I have requested for reopening the checkuser request by अनुनाद as I saw it later, but I had doubt from the beginning. Though the harmful symphony of sockpuppets is working on Hindi wiki, but the most striking evidence between them is found from Sanskrit wiki where I happen to be a sysop.
User Lovysinghal had came on Sanskrit wiki doing some stray edits, and making spaces between proper noun titles (ie renaming articles), as he is not good at Sanskrit language itself. I one day told him not to do so as in Sanskrit rules spacing is not generally done in between name and surname. Then on, he started the reverse, ie finding titles which did have spaces in between and renaming them to spaceless ones. I was satisfied by this. Then he stopped working one day, nothing surprising.
One fine day SeanZCampbell appears and starts removing spaces between titles. The very first day i was surprised and noted that this is the same user; as from 2009 i have not seen a single user removing spaces between titles. Either people write articles or do other jobs, but this job is something unique to Sanskrit wiki, and only i have recognized its need till date, which i had conveyed to Lovysinghal. Moreover another job, of removing spaces between word and fullstops in sentences, is the thing which is same. This is "not" a common job done by users on I never felt need for checkuser even after all this, as nothing was harmful, even if he wants a new account and obscurity, let him.
But now when the same person starts influencing discussions' direction on Hindi wiki, then i recognized the need. So plz carry on. Thanks and Regards. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their contributions on Sanskrit wiki:
Lovysinghal .

Copy from Contribution Records:
Pagemoves for removing name-surname spaces:
e.g. by Lovysinghal:

(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) १७:१६, ३१ जनुवरि २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (०)‎ . . (लघु) अनिलकुंबले ‎ (Lovysinghal इति प्रयोक्त्रा अनिल कुंबले इत्येतत् अनिलकुंबले इत्येतत् प्रति चालितम्: no spacing in names) (शीर्षम्) [२ सम्पादनानि प्रत्याहरतु ।]

(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) १७:२१, ३१ जनुवरि २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (०)‎ . . (लघु) कर्णममल्लेश्वरी ‎ (Lovysinghal इति प्रयोक्त्रा कर्णम मल्लेश्वरी इत्येतत् कर्णममल्लेश्वरी इत्येतत् प्रति चालितम्: no spa...)

e.g. By SeanZCampbell: (दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) १०:१७, १२ मार्च् २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+१०५)‎ . . (नवीनम्) सच्चिदानन्द वात्स्यायन ‎ (SeanZCampbell इति प्रयोक्त्रा सच्चिदानन्द वात्स्यायन इत्येतत् सच्चिदानन्दवात्स्यायनः इत्येतत् प...) (शीर्षम्)

(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) १२:०३, ११ मार्च् २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+७५)‎ . . (नवीनम्) अमिताभ बच्चन् ‎ (SeanZCampbell इति प्रयोक्त्रा अमिताभ बच्चन् इत्येतत् अमिताभबच्चन् इत्येतत् प्रति चालितम्: no spacing) (शीर्षम्)

Only a few r cited here, actually there r many. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
(Evidences added on 17-March-2013 2:52PM IST:)
Use of word अनुवादम् (=translation):
Correct Sanskrit word for word "translation" is अनुवादः (note last colon-like sign called visarga), but while writing edit summaries Lovysinghal wrongly used अनुवादम् and SeanZCampbell continued the same mistake, अनुवादम् in edit-summaries due to same misknowledge:
(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) ०५:४१, २ फ़ेब्रुवरि २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+२२)‎ . . फलकम्:Archive box ‎ (अनुवादम्)
(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) ०५:३८, २ फ़ेब्रुवरि २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+१०८)‎ . . फलकम्:पुरालेखाः ‎ (अनुवादम्)

(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) ०८:५४, ११ मार्च् २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+४३)‎ . . फलकम्:फलकं वर्गः ‎ (अनुवादम्)
(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) ०८:५२, ११ मार्च् २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+८१)‎ . . वर्गः:राष्ट्रतथ्यानि फलकानि ‎ (अनुवादम्)
(दर्श्यन्ताम्/गोप्यन्ताम्) ०८:४३, ११ मार्च् २०१३ (अन्तरम् | इतिहासः) . . (+३९)‎ . . फलकम्:Country showdata ‎ (अनुवादम्) (शीर्षम्) [१ सम्पादनम् प्रत्याहरतु ।]
- Hemant wikikosh (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) - - - - - -

  • Hemant, checkuser proceeds with the request under certain circumstances, which include disruption, vote-stacking, etc. Assuming he is a sock of Lovysinghal (which I don't believe at all), he hasn't done anything disruptive or detrimental to the project. The discussion you are referring to is null and void as Hindi Wikipedia policy allows de-sysoping of a user only in case of clear abuse. Thus far you haven't established that. It's plain and simple. If x/he wanted to !vote in the discussion he could have used his/her old account instead of creating a new one. How it is a vote-stacking? The net support/oppose in this pro/con !voting would have remained the same. How much brains do you need to figure out why your request doesn't make any sense? I don't want to get in another argument, so I'm just reminding you that checkuser is not for fishing. The rest is for checkuser to decide.--Bill william compton (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have made ur point. And all such arguments r expected from a sock-puppet game accomplices too. So nothing new. I am saying that the user is trying to influence a discussion, and u r taking a much better ground by declaring the said discussion as null and void; All this based on ur declaration that "I have not done a clear abuse of my rights.". Does this argument stand? Your argument is based on judging urself by u (or ur avatars) which is clear violation of natural justice; and conflict of interest is also clear. Finally I want to advise u that don't try to look as absconding a Checkuser test, as this only aggravates doubts, provided the evidences given. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What else they want to gain by a sock-puppet?: They want to establish that those who are opposing us are actually opposing everybody on Hindi wiki, be it Lovysinghal or SeanZCampbell or Bill William Compton, so their opposition is their own habitual problem; Otherwise, are "all" users wrong simultaneously? And thus want to have another 'proof' to block their opponents (of course as i said he really reacted with a block proposal for the opponent). And this way the bent of mind of general users is effected by this scenario. There r many other uses of this game for them, which they better know, and have actually exploited. And i would not say more in open for i don't want to give a new idea to unrelated people. I am just fulfilling what i am supposed to tell for requirement here. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: (Added some more evidences above).-Hemant wikikosh (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  Confirmed that SeanZCampbell and Lovysinghal are the same. @Bill William Compton rules are rules and this doesn't sit within a guidance space, it sits within the enforcement space; if you don't like the policy please suggest to the community to change it, and in the meanwhile enforce the hard policies. That said, there is no evident concurrent use of the accounts, so I would suggest that one is retired and marked as so, and then linked to the ongoing account. User can pick which it should be.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SeanZCampbell has been permanently blocked. The proposed zero tolerance policy from July 2012 on sockpuppets which had failed to pass has been presented again for member approval. If it gets through, there will be a one-time amnesty followed by strict enforcement. It is absolutely ridiculous that we don't have a binding sockpuppet policy on Hindi wikipedia. I am proposing blocking Lovysinghal for a 3 month period (unlike Jagdish Vyom who was simply let go with a warning earlier). This anarchy has to stop. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement by Hunnjazal, who is a Hindi wiki admin, is highly misleading. There exists a sufficiently balanced sockpuppet policy on Hindi wikipedia. It was formulated after long sufficient discussion. On this discussion page, it can be seen that 6 persons supported it while nobody opposed it. In the policy it is clearly written "...ऐसा होने पर सभी प्रभावित खाते और इन खातों के पीछे के सदस्य को विकिपीडिया से प्रतिबंधित किया जा सकता है।" (.. If so happens, all the related accounts and member behind these accounts can be banned from wikipedia.).
See the irony in this regard. Few months back when this policy was NOT there on Hindi wiki, some 'very simple people' (who were not confirmed but suspected only) were banned even after my opposition to it for absence of any sockpuppet policy. Today when this policy is there, the same person and an admin says 'there is no binding sockpuppet policy'. I feel that this time the the fault is more severe because it has been commited by an admin (Lovysinhal).अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks billinghurst for the cooperation. But see the irony that he who requested (Anunad Sngh) has been blocked and no action has been taken against Lovysinghal who has been confirmed to having a puppet by Hunnjazal who is an administrator to talk to him. It can be seen above that Bill William Compton, who is another administrator has pleaded against this checkuser request. It is also to be seen that Hunnjazal was himself suspected in this request. These three (Lovysinghal, Bill William Compton and Hunnjazal) have been working in tandem for more than a year and blocked or tried to block all those who do not follow their line.
    Suspecting that this checkuser request might be positive, Hunnjazal gave me a 'final warning' (in his own words) at 13:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC) alleging 'personal attack'. As soon as the result came positive, along with some 'showy action' to SeanZCampbell, he blocked me at 04:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) though I have not written a single word on Hindi wiki after his 'final warning'. This was done without any discussion or consent by any other person. This shows his grand game of protecting his people and blocking those who are pointing fingers at Hunnjazal or his associates. This is clear abuse of administrative rights. There is very clear guideline that "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved..." (Involved admins). Other administrators on Hindi wiki or dormant and are not responding at all. Moreover, an important voting is in progress to remove Bill William Compton from administrator's post for abusing administrative rights given to him. A majority of members have voted for this whereas Hunnjazal has voted against it. By blocking me and shutting my mouth forcefully, they want to defeat this motion.
    Would somebody suggest what I should do?अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I cannot decisively comment on all issues related to user:अनुनाद सिंह or any other user for that matter; but on this issue, the point अनुनाद सिंह has made is true- that no due process is followed in blocking him from any angle; other issues could have been settled by talk but here the talk itself is made impossible by blocking just to keep the number-game intact in their own favor, and to shed off answerability on this sock-puppet issue itself . Since there are only two active sysops, sadly one of them pleaded agnst checkuser test, the other blocked the requester अनुनाद सिंह just after the outcome of this check, so this is a fact that there is not even showy justice on Hindi wiki. Normally this does not occur in 'gaming the system' cases, i.e. showy justice is present usually. But here is a special case, because people are not there on to question (or if there those r warded off by multiple instances of the same user, or now even blocked), so there is a total hijack-like situation on Hindi wiki. Though i know that we all positive people on wikipedia together will finally be able to overcome this situation. Quoting an old Sanskrit saying- भवितव्यानां द्वाराणि भवन्ति सर्वत्र -"Everything that is meant to be, will surely find its way through". Thanks Billinghurst for co-operation. And pardon me for using this much space on this meta-page. Suggestions, if any, from Checkuser(s) are most welcome. Thanks & Regards. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely open to being investigated with Checkuser to any extent. Please do so at will and at whatever frequency you want to compare me with whoever you want - you have my support and permission. It is supreme irony that the policy Anunad is appealing to was opposed by him and never came into force. It was proposed by Bill William Compton. Use Google Translate and read the Talk page. Anunad has been banned for 3 months for use of coded racist language (against Westerners and Muslims), personal attacks and name-calling, and persistently giving articles an ideological bent. He received a specific final warning to not do this in July 2012 when he narrowly escaped being blocked - there was near-unanimity on blocking him but he was exempted in recognition of tenure. For Hindi-wikipedians, please endorse the zero-tolerance policy on sockpuppets so we actually have a basis to take some action. Technically, Lovysinghal can come back right now and demand that his sockpuppet be restored because there is actually no enforcement policy. Then you can call me whatever you want. Or we can agree right here to simply import the English policy wholesale (my *strong* preference because it enables us to benefit from the thinking process of dozens of English wikipedians). There is only one way out from personality-driven conflicts here and that is establishing policies. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hunnjazal is again trying to mislead by saying that '...the policy Anunad is appealing to was opposed by him and never came into force'. Anybody can see on that discussion page that a short statement by me was made under the title 'चर्चा' (discussion) and not under 'समर्थन' (support or 'yes' voting) or 'विरोध' (opposition). Moreover in this statement, I have essentially said that the policy at that time was full of ambiguities and that it should be passed only after removing these ambiguities. It can be seen that after my statement, discussion and changes in the policy draft did occure for few days and finally got 100% supoort (no opposition) for implementation. Hunnjazal is also misleading by saying that it was never in force. What does he mean by this?अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patently disingenuous. Where does it say it is now in effect? Show me *one* sentence that says that. The final statement (on 26 July) is from Siddharth Ghai who was dissatisfied with the draft. Efforts on it had pretty much been abandoned about then. Your statement there (of July 24) explicitly demands a minimum one month moratorium before discussion on voting could even be reopened. It's right there in black and white, right now, for anyone and everyone to read! And now you're claiming it went into force right then! Why would you even make a claim that's as obviously disprovable as this in this day and age of automated translation? It boggles the mind. Anyway, checkuser is not the right place for all this afaik (though I am okay with it if they allow it). However, if you want to demand some checkusers on me, clearly this would be a good time and place. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hunnjazal, where does this policy say that it is NOT in effect? In fact the category given to it is 'विकिनीतियाँ' (wiki policies). As far as I know ALL the wikipolicies on Hindi wiki are in effect in exactly the same way, ie without explicitly declaring that the policy is in effect or otherwise. You have blocked me. Where is the policy for blocking? Where is it explicitely declared that this 'blocking policy' is in effect? From your arguments themselves, it is proved that you have 'illegally' blocked me. Also, there is no policy in effect for administrators. How do you call yourselves an administrator?
As far as translation is concerned, Google translate can only be a minor help in such cases. Let related persons decide whether they can rely on Google translate for such an issue.अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. Anyone can create a proposed policy in that category. Anti-sockpuppet was never approved (in part because you were filibustering it). Your conduct is definitely violative of multiple counts of hi:विकिपीडिया:निषेध नियमावली. If this is law, you can be blocked permanently, though I haven't done that. You did mellow a bit after the strict warning 9 months ago, I grant you that. But over the past few months your behavior has been sliding back and the deletion of poorly sourced, POV (rightwing) material on Hindu nationalism and the deletion caused by the formal copyright complaint from that Australian university (why were you even arguing about that?), you're back to where you were before. You *really* need to take a break and probably just stay away from articles to do with Indian politics after you are back. Google translate is pretty decent, so what's your issue with letting people verify for themselves what's in the talk pages? I don't get it. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding the main question- "Which Hindi Wikipedia policy is tagged 'in effect' if not the sock puppet policy. You are quoting Hindi Wikipedia Banning policy as a basis for blocking me. But this is also not tagged 'IN EFFECT'. Even there has been no discussion on this!
The fact is that where ever it is specifically not written that 'THIS POLICY IS NOT IN EFFECT', that policy is in effect. Therefore the sock puppet policy is in effect on Hindi wikipedia. अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your battles elsewhere, at a bare minimum. Preferably learn that you are at wikipedia, where it is about building an encyclopaedia, not just about you lot and your arguments. Learn to get a long; learn that there is difference, learn that the purpose is how to get along, and to represent the whole story, not your individual biases. If you cannot sort it out on your wiki, then create a RFCbillinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Could you please give us some links, showing and explaining where the abuse is ? It's not easy to believe this as none of these accounts have ever been blocked, even some have no contributions reverted. If people are persecuting the community, why aren't they blocked ? Also I'd like to see some kind of comunity consensus, or at least some approval from the local sysops, since this request involves a member of the community. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links where abuse is (1 2 3 4 5 6 7).
Here are some reverted contribution (1 2 3)
None of these accounts have ever been blocked because on only two crat's and both are regularly active. One of them is user:Mahitgar which account is given here for CU and another crat is user:अभय नातू (Abhay Natu), till he don't use his tool for blocking users or IP's who vandalise or personally attacks or persecute edits/message/talk (I don't know why he cant use his tool as he is the most senior crat and sysop). There is only one regularly active sysop user:‎Abhijitsathe and he is not interested for blocking users who vandalise or personally attacks or persecutable edits/message/talk. He gives explanation here about blocking. It means that if he block such user then they personaly targeted him.
Here is the community consensus and approval link, where sysops and community members also involved there. Thanks --संतोष दहिवळ (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since I can neither read Marathi nor translate it, I would really appreciate to have local sysops (at least user:अभय नातू) comming here and commenting on this. Also, what you said about user:‎Abhijitsathe is a bit shocking to me, because my view on the adminship is that on the contrary you can use your tools to block every attacking people except those who directly attacked you. But this is an other point, let's go one by one. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I informed user:अभय नातू on his talk page about this discussion and give him a link for commenting here. -- संतोष दहिवळ (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the request for comment. From the discussion above, I believe the specific comment being sought from me is about (lack of) banning/blocking users on w:mr. If there're more topics on which you'd like me to comment, or specific issues within banning/blocking, please list them here. I will try to answer all at once.
Thank you
अभय नातू (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even as I am confused by the flurry of seemingly disjointed messages here, I'll try to comment on (what I think is) the topic that Quentinv57 sought my input on.
First off, let me be on the record saying I do not encourage, condone or discount personal attacks on anyone, anywhere.
Having said that, w:mr has always been a very open forum for collaboration. As a 'crat and sysop, I have taken the stand, without much dissent from the community, that banning/blocking users is a very drastic step and must be used only sparingly. At the same time, I do understand that other sysops/'crats can exercise their own judgement and ban/block users. That is the discretion granted to 'crats/sysops by the community and I respect that. I have suffered countless personal attacks at regular itervals from dozens of users (or sock-puppets), some of them the very accounts mentioned here. Even so, I (along with many well-meaning and patient users/sysops) have always tried to resolve issues amicably by reasoning with the offenders, maintaining an open dialog and sometimes, warnings of consequences. Assuming Good Faith has been my guiding principle, instead of confrontation right off the bat.
Looking at various other wikimedia projects, I find that escalation of this war-of-words and indiscriminate banning/blocking leads to waste of time and energy. Continuing to ignore personal attacks has helped me continue as a 'crat, sysop and editor for many years.
Please let me know if this answers your query or if you need more/different detail.
अभय नातू (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some misinformation here regarding banning of users by admin on marathi wikipedia. On marathi wikipedia admins can ban and have banned members for personal reasons or otherwise. Please see the link for banning / blocking detatils.[3]
Mrwiki reforms (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user Quentinv57
  • Post of user:‎Abhijitsathe (sysop) mentioned by User:संतोष दहिवळ is dated 12 August 2012. Please refer block list by user:‎Abhijitsathe (sysop) he has used his blocking tools subsequently in October 2012 atleast 3 times i.e. 7th,15th &19th oct 2012.He has used his tools to delet pages and issue warnings including a warning to on user in question user:Ghatikar 6th March 2013
  • Refer talk page of user;Ghatikar I have issued atleast two warnings to the user previously.
  • Refer above mentioned Hotcat gadget related discussion I have myself requested/asked other users sying "Please no one to make personal attacks on any one" in Marathi language "::कृपया कूणी कुणावर व्यक्तिगत हल्ले करू नयेत."
adding more details soon.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mahitgar, I would love to answer you but you're speaking to the wrong person. While I asked for more evidence to understand the context before running the check, User:Shizhao decided to do it on his own. Thus I will ask him on his talk page to answer you. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Group 1:

  • Ghatikar
  • Tipyaa
  • Neetinkadu Neetin kadu
  • पुणेरीपूणेकर
  • क्रमश

Possible Possible(from different ISPs):

  • Group 1
  • Dhariyaa
  • Swarupsing

Other Unrelated Unrelated--Shizhao (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shizhao and other stewards , you state others unrelated.I suppose that means my account mahitgar is un related with above mentioned group.But on Marathi Wikipedia village pump संतोष दहिवळ has mirepresented the facts complteley in opposite manner at Marathi language Wikipedia's village pump w:mr:विकिपीडिया:चावडी/इतर_चर्चा#माहितगार हा पाळीव खाती (Sockpuppet) वापरणारा कलंकित सदस्य here.
I will be answering on your talk page in detail in coming few days but let me cclearly state that I have nothing to do with any of abusive language using accounts any where on wikimedia sites. Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am translating section created by him below
His misinterpretation + misrepresentation
  • It seems this SRCU got only partially archived I suppose that was an error and ,Stewards please support in correcting the error.


These are  Confirmed ‏بیکار, Espiral, Textman de
Mehdi 2013 is Inconclusive Inconclusive but has a  Confirmed sock of their own, Beholder2013 QuiteUnusual TalkQu 12:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot.--Taranet (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Krantmlverma and Awadhesh.Pandey are the same user.
अवनीश सिंह चौहान and Dr.jagdish are another user unrelated to the first one. Hemant Shesh is also Possible Possible member of this group.
अनुनाद सिंह is Unrelated Unrelated.
Ruslik (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ruslik, thanks for the help. Just wanted to confirm if the Browser/Platform/their versions info is also found same for the above two confirmed groups? Or only IP is found to be same? Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same. Ruslik (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"अनुनाद सिंह was blocked based on racist language and personal attacks."- This may be simple and plain. But what is surprising is that some other user(s) are working as sysop on Hindi wiki despite racist language, personal attacks and offensive words even. @Hunnjazal, please desist from always representing half-story, this will lead you nowhere. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, but I won't respond here anymore because we were specifically told not to in a previous case.--Hunnjazal (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! Another one just popped-up. Vpnagarkar. Only two actual article changes (ever) to their credit but has revived suddenly after 5 months of dormancy to attack the same admin. The writing style and choice of words appears to resemble Dr.jagdish (who is now blocked) but might also be Krantmlverma. I would appreciate this being checked against these other accounts above. For the future: for all we know there may be dozens of such accounts (some appear to have been created programmatically). What is the best way to deal with them? I don't want to bog checkuser down with a stream of one-offs but am also cannot block someone just because they strongly appear to be a sock. Thank you! --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Lawyer532 is Stale. Ruslik (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


مکری11 is Unrelated Unrelated. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The following accounts are  Confirmed: 징장가오, Entereturn, 익타이안, 이장윤, Kayinus, Yenaiross, Eungroliy, Bropost, Probost, 李應魯, Gappos, and Ghanaqueen. They're all already blocked though. Mathonius (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev kumar sinha@hi.wikipedia

The check does not confirm that these 5 users are related. Pundit (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time2wait.svg On hold Please wait for further information from the stewards, this case is currently being discussed. Elfix 09:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hunnjazal, please find below the results of the check you requested :
  • Sanjeev kumar sinha is Unrelated Unrelated to other suspected users per CU data.
  • Praveentrivedi009 and Vpnagarkar are Likely Likely to be the same user.
  • Manidiwakar and Mala chaubey are Possible Possible sockpuppets. So do Hemant Shesh and अवनीश सिंह चौहान.
  • I also wanted to add that to me अवनीश सिंह चौहान and Dr.jagdish are NOT confirmed, they are just Possible Possible.
Please handle these results with kid gloves. It was quite hard to analyse this because we do not have much data about the suspected users (sometimes only one edit). When I say that an account is not related per CU data, this does not prove at all it's not the same person, it just does not prove it's the same person. When I say that two users are possibly the same, it means that we found some relations between them, but clearly not enough to block.
Anyway, don't worry about these zombie accounts comming back only for voting. We won't take them into account because we can't really say that people comming back after years of absence are still members of the community. Sockpuppets or not, their opinion has not much weight in the vote.
I'd like to make a special thanks to Snowolf who helped me to analyse this CU data. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the time you and Snowolf took to look at this. No account will be blocked (or any action other than continued observation taken) as a result of this but it is still good to be aware of what is happening. Thanks also for the reassurance on the voting! --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

माहितगार हा पाळीव खाती (Sockpuppet) वापरणारा कलंकित सदस्य

सदस्य:Mahitgar हा अनेक पाळीव खाती (कठपुतळी/Sockpuppet) वापरणारा कलंकित सदस्य असल्याचे सिद्ध झाले आहे. सदस्य:Ghatikar, सदस्य:Tipyaa, सदस्य:Neetinkadu, सदस्य:पुणेरीपूणेकर, सदस्य:क्रमश ही सर्व पाळीव खाती माहितगारची असल्याचे सिद्ध झाले आहे. -- संतोष दहिवळ (चर्चा) १९:५५, १८ मार्च २०१३ (IST)</nowiki>

==Mahitgar is the tainted user having pet accounts i.e. (Sockpuppet) == It has been proved that User:Mahitgar is tanted user with multiple sockpupet accounts. [[User:Ghatikar]], [[User:Tipyaa]], [[User:Neetinkadu]], [[User:पुणेरीपूणेकर]], [[User:क्रमश]] all these are mahitgar's pet accounts is proved now.
Where and when this is proved ? I request stewards kind support in clearing confusion in minds of संतोष दहिवळ with a clear statement at Marathi Wikipedia village pump at the same place w:mr:विकिपीडिया:चावडी/इतर_चर्चा#माहितगार हा पाळीव खाती (Sockpuppet) वापरणारा कलंकित सदस्य. Unfortunately using user user :संतोष दहिवळ miss information other user have already started attacking me personally with prejudice.
Kindly requesting earliest steward support in this respect.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now confirm you not sockpupets.--Shizhao (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clearify on above mentioned link here. Thanks -- संतोष दहिवळ (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also check for following accounts which I suspect to be the sockpuppet of Mahitgar ?
User:पान का ? काढा
I had asked Mahitgar regarding this duplicate ID over here for last 5 months. Till date, he has not defended on this so I strongly suspect that there are his IDs. I would also like to know which are the IDs Mahitgar has used in last 7 years which are sock puppet? If at all, you find some more IDs and confirm on the same, do you have authority to remove all his accesses from wikipedia?
Thanks - Polkhol (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Shizhao and other Stewards
Per say me personally it doesent mattar how many times you run checkuser on me.I am always good at clear , positive and constructive thinking with strong arguments;and that my understanding of wikipedia values is balance and clear.So I never needed to use any abusive or defamatory language against anyone on any of wikimedia projects or other wise.
One problem is my arguments and style is strong enough , and many people endup copying it.The second problem is my neutrality ; In marathi wikipedia debates I have realised that people of different sides of spectrum like to fight among themselves and get together and attack a neutral person itself .So at one point I decided as far as possible I will not intervene in any debate untill both parties clearly vote and ask for my intervention.That is the reason I have kept aloof and avoided replying any debates.
  • Since neither I was aware of any check user is going on , in any case my user name is named I did not object per say but Marathi Wikipedia's blocking and unblocking policy indirecly covers aspect of local checkuser policy.
This [[[:w:mr:%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE:%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%89%E0%A4%95_%E0%A4%B5_%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%89%E0%A4%95_%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3|Blocking and unblocking policy of Marathi Wikipedia]] has following paragraph in Marathi.
"असा व्यक्तिगत टिकेचा भाग संबधीत सदस्याच्या चर्चा पानावर सुचित केल्या नंतर सुद्धा पुर्नस्थापित करण्याचे दोन पेक्षा अधिक प्रयत्न झाल्यास अशा सदस्यखात्यामागील इतर सदस्यनामे व अंकपत्ते सदस्यत्व तपासनिसास (check user) शोधण्यास सांगून संबधी सदस्यखाती आणि अंकपत्ते प्रचालक सात दिवस ते एकवर्षेपर्यंत आवश्यकतेनुसार प्रतिबंधित करण्यास सांगितले जाऊ शकेल अथवा अपवादात्मक परिस्थितीत प्रचालक असा निर्णय स्वतः घेऊन संबधीत सदस्याचे खाते प्रतिबंधीत करू शकतील, मराठी विकिपीडिया समुदायाच्या सहमतीने असे प्रतिबंधनाचा कालावधी कमी केला जाऊ शकेल."
Translation of main points:1)A user who is making personal attack is to be notified on his user talk page not to do so.2)Personal attack needs to be reverted 3) Even after two reverts if the attack comes third time then a checkuser request is supposed to be made.
It is understandable that people put up checkuser requests for those accounts which are involved in abusive language or vandalism .But unfortunately people are putting up requests incase where there is no vandalism or abusive language.
  • User:User:पान का ? काढा mentions on his user talk page in english language that "Sorry "सदस्य:पान का ? काढा" is a limited purpose account (So I have no reason and purpose to get in any other debate through this account) , when I visited here to my surprise most of the pages with deletion templates do not carry any reasons why the concerned pages need to be deleted and certainly this attitude and culture is of quite inconvinience to the new comers .I fail to understand why this aspect is not a cause of concern to Marathi language wikipedians ! and more over people putting in deletion templates do not want any request to undersand the reason on their talk page they do delete requests in this way from talk pages !!"
Through his contributions This user पान का ? काढा has only went on only requesting users to mention a reason while putting up deletion templates. :This gentleman User:पान का ? काढा has copied certain sentences from a template created by me doesnot necessarily need not mean that is my account or any thing. *User:MK100001 [// contributions are in english language for any one to see. I did not see any abusive language there in his contributions.
If there is no abusive language or vandalism on part of these users , placing a checkuser on them would be a misuse of this process.While I did not see clear definition of fishing on meta,I assume these request are fishing requests and it is high time Meta does some thing more to educate people about Fishing.
This user Polkhol and few more users have breached my privacy on mr-wiki by unncessarily using my personal name again and again without my consent.As mentioned by Crat Abhay Natu earlier in this discussion as sysops we ignore attacks and breach of privacy against us does not mean those are good things and if stewards can guide them on a proper path would be a welcome.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Shizhao and all other stewards,
Mahitgar is doing lot of alligations and trying to protect himself. Mahitgar himself had disclosed his name (name removed) on wikipedia itself in one of his earlier communication on Wikipedia. So there is no breach of contract. On the other side, he always encourage people to use dummy name on wikipedia and ask them not to disclose his / her identity. According to him, when people make personal attacks on the real name, it really herts but when it is been done on dummy name, it can be easily ignored. Then why he did not supported Abhay Natu (crat of Marathi Wikipedia) and Sankalp Drawid(admin on Marathi Wikipedia) when personal attacks were happening on them since Sep. 2011. Why Mahitgar ignored those? Why he did not bann those users for that. StewardQuentinv57 was keep on communicating admins for the same, but Mahitgar did not acted through out the period. If the crat like Mahitgar is not following there responsibilities and are using sock puppet accounts for his (unknown) purpose, it is better to run the detail check user again and disclose the actions. According to me, this is not FISHING. If a responsible crat is indulged in such activities, it is not good for the benefit of Marathi Wikipedia.

Polkhol (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shizhao and other Stewards
Actually I am confused , whether still there is any need remaining on my part to answer User:Polkhol any more.As such whether it will be more wise that CU requesting user puts up any request only after pin pointing exact Account to be compared with so called abusive language, if any, and translation and not to make any wild allegations.
But it is for stewards to decide till then let me try one by one.
>>User:Polkhol says "Mahitgar is doing lot of alligations and trying to protect himself."
  • Actually alligations are levelled by User:Polkhol and not by me.
  • To protect my own privacy is my right. I expressed my concern over breach of privacy (clarifying 'Not breach of contract'), because you (User:Polkhol) and few more are lacking in seriousness of the issue about privacy protection.You yourself are aware I have not disclosed my name out of freewill on Marathi Wikipedia.It has been disclosed by some one like ,probably, who does not have/understand seriousness of privacy.As Abhay Natu says we show patience that does not mean we accept it.
Here i quote Steward Quentinv57' statement from previous CU "....And, as an example, posting private data about admins is a kind of harassment. Also please remember to quickly ask a steward to remove it if more private informations are revealed on the wiki." We waited with patience because we want community members to understand their mistake.Since any way you are here I requested Stewards to guide you about seriousness about privacy issues.But surprisingly you are continueing with your breach of privacy attempts on Meta, just in front of Stewards itself.
On mr-wikipedia we are working on edit filters to avoid breach of privacy .Once that is success all private data will be removed and new attempts will be disallwed.But unfortunately I can not remove your wrongdoings on Meta here on this page on my own.I seek and request steward support in removing my personal information i.e. my name from this page since that attempt by User:Polkhol is without my consent.
And for Marathi people as a senior admin of Marathi wikipedia,if no options, I am ready to suffer even breach of my personal privacy.Most important aspect is you and your fellow friends understanding seriousness of the issue and not repeating this mistake of breach of privacy with some other fellow.

>>User:Polkhol further says, " On the other side, he always encourage people to use dummy name on wikipedia and ask them not to disclose his / her identity. According to him, when people make personal attacks on the real name, it really herts but when it is been done on dummy name, it can be easily ignored."
Dear User:Polkhol, Please once again try to understand that WIkipedia is not Facebook to disclose personal identities.I encourage people to use 'pseudonym' or atleast to avoid sirnames to avoid Caste based profiling and descrimination to any one.Suggesting to use pseudonym is about anonymisation ,it is niether about sock puppetry nor we condone or discount personal attacks on anyone, anywhere.
When any abuse happens against any person, not only most of wikipedia help pages but all sensible guidance about how to receive criticism in constructive manner, guides people to not to take issues personally and to ignore abusive people.It is one of the strategies to counter abuse.Simillerly for a public personality 'pseudonym' makes it easier to ignore abuse.Once again in no uncertain terms let me reiterate here this does not mean encouragement, condone or discount personal attacks on anyone, anywhere.
Besides I have personally taken huge effort in updating abuse filters on Marathi Wikipedia, and good news share with you is that now we are almost reduced false positives and with few more tests these edit filter will be throttling and disallowing most of abuse. Besides we have taken many more steps those we will share update soon here.
On personal attacks let me quote Mr.Abhay Natu's above staement which I agree almost in toto
"First off, let me be on the record saying I do not encourage, condone or discount personal attacks on anyone, anywhere.
Having said that, w:mr has always been a very open forum for collaboration. As a 'crat and sysop, I have taken the stand, without much dissent from the community, that banning/blocking users is a very drastic step and must be used only sparingly. At the same time, I do understand that other sysops/'crats can exercise their own judgement and ban/block users. That is the discretion granted to 'crats/sysops by the community and I respect that. I have suffered countless personal attacks at regular itervals from dozens of users (or sock-puppets), some of them the very accounts mentioned here. Even so, I (along with many well-meaning and patient users/sysops) have always tried to resolve issues amicably by reasoning with the offenders, maintaining an open dialog and sometimes, warnings of consequences. Assuming Good Faith has been my guiding principle, instead of confrontation right off the bat.
Looking at various other wikimedia projects, I find that escalation of this war-of-words and indiscriminate banning/blocking leads to waste of time and energy. Continuing to ignore personal attacks has helped me continue as a 'crat, sysop and editor for many years.
Please let me know if this answers your query or if you need more/different detail.
After coming back I will be again quoting from Steward Quentinv57 's Guidance from previous CU.
(Right now I need to leave for work I will continue writing once back)
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shizhao and all other stewards,
Mahitgar as always have tendency to divert and confuse the member including Stewards. I have only mentioned that his real name has been disclosed by him in old communication. On the top of that there are many linked I can share from the media (link removed) where his real name is been addressed and there was no comments or resistance from his side on that.There are some websites (link removed) as well. There are some blogs (link removed) on which also his name is mentioned but he has no objection to it. You can check on Marathi google yourself.... The height of this is that an article on his name is also been created on 20th Oct. 2012 article (link removed) by (username removed) and that could be another sock puppet of Mahitgar. Being an admin. he teaches rules to the whole world but does not find time to delete that article for last more than 5 months. Every body likes to have article on his or her name on wikipedia :). There is a formality for request to remove the page but why Mahitgar will remove that page? You will get many more link if you search his name on English Google. So there is no breach of privacy what Mahitgar is mentioning.
When print media, television media, blogs disclose his name, there is no issue, but if somebody disclose just the name on wikipedia, then there is a major fault!!! Simply great.
You are kindly requested to warn Mahitgar and ask him not to write essay on Meta and come to straight point. I again urge Stewards to run the check user again and find out all sock puppet account. Also if you feel and agree, Mahitgar need to understand more rules, pls. remove his sysop and crat from Marathi wikipedia till further date till it gets confirmed that he is innocent.

Polkhol (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shizhao and all other stewards,
  • >>You are kindly requested to warn Mahitgar and ask him not to write essay on Meta and come to straight point.
No I am not here to write essays, answering false allegations, and defending my rights along with wikimedia values is my right and I have not written any thing beyond. Rather I wanted to give detail list and statement but I asked stewards for their guidance where to write , to avoid any increase in length here.Secondly already I hinted Stewards and you to have a separate CU request here to avoid confusion.Because 1) originally this CU presented by user संतोष दहिवळ .And this CU's results are I am not sock puppet is clearly mentioned by User:Shizhao.
Besides I discussed issue of privacy on lines of guidance by Steward Quentinv57' in previous CU and I have already quoted him.So I suppose I can not be blamed for raising issue of my privacy. User name of User:Polkhol itself means leaking of information.And I do not know if the gentleman is confused between wikipedia and wikileaks.Through this discussion I wish my confused friend User:Polkhol understands wikipedia is not wikileaks.
  • >>Being an admin. he teaches rules to the whole world
Yes I know the rules and follow them properly and balanced manner. The article [[article by user:दसरादिवाळी is not about me.The article mentioned by you is about some awards winning journalist, to whome I have no relation with. Being article on an award winning person article with proper reference article is encyclopedic.Beyond introduction sentence about the person there is nothing else.So there is no abusive language no defamation article is encyclopedic, why do I delet the article if it is in Marathi Wikipedia's local norms.And still if you want you can discuss with rest of active Marathi Wikipedia sysops and get it deleted.
I do not see and think user:दसरादिवाळी has made a crime by just creating an encyclopedic article. And I have no connection and relation with user:दसरादिवाळी.Still if you and on you request stewards want to run a CU , I have no issues from my side. But according to me the request is frivolous and amounts to fishing .
>> I have only mentioned that his real name has been disclosed by him in old communication.
I have always prefered to maintain my public identity different and wikipedia identity different.If you know very well that I am working in field for promotion of wikimedia movement and Marathi language wikipedia;It was for User:Polkhol other users to respect my sentiments and my privacy.
For wikimedia movements sake I would not have objected to dilution of my privacy but one of the purposes to disclose and discuss personal identity on your part has been profiling and descrimination , that we do not support and accept.
Responsible media has used and mentioned only one of the identity in their news reports.Including one of the media link you have given uses only one name.Actually as a responsible wikipedian it is for you to guide rest of our Indian and Marathi language brother and sisters to guide them to respect privacy of the individuals and not to defend breach of privacy.
  • Again I quote guidance by Steward Quentinv57' in previous CU ,he says a memeber not using abusive language need not be probed without reason and that "You don't really need to be sure that these(abusive language using) persons are the same to block them " an abusive language using person can be blocked any way.We do have good number of admins active on mr wiki who have acted against abusive languge time to time link of which has been already shared in this CU discussion by another user.
The problem is many of my confused friends on mr-wiki expect and pressuring admins to compromise on neutrality , and in some cases even want legitimate non-abusive criticism to get dislodged.And at times they fail to balance various wikimedia values in proportionate manner.Although my valuable time is getting wasted in answering unfounded allegations.But in a way these CUs will help increase awareness of atleast few fellow wikipedians.So my best wishes to all gentlemen who wants to put CUs against me. I do not have any love to stick to sysop and cratships the day I feel Marathi language wikipedia has got enough people who have got to understand wikimedia all values in balanced manner including that of neutrality.No one will need to ask me to go.I am eagerly waiting for such good day.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shizhao and all other stewards,
I kindly requesting all of you (I can't sure about my question is right or wrong) but i am confusing with Shizhao's result, Shizhao says that in confirmed group 1, there is one username is Neetinkadu
But till this time i am writing, this username Neetinkadu has been not registered with any project (please see here)
Is there any mistake by Check User?
Anybody please clear up my confusion.
And if there is some mistake by checkuser please re-run CU
-- संतोष दहिवळ (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Polkhol Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing--Shizhao (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Note: : If you need further discussion, please go to RFC--Shizhao (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment I'm reopening this request because some raised concerns have still not been adressed (see [7] for details) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For this SRCU discussion and for that matter wikimedia/wikipedia my user name is more than sufficient.And direct or indirect usage of my name is uncalled for an absolute breach of privacy.If I am working for wikimedia movement in the field that does not mean I need to suffer on my privacy rights.
I have taken liberty to underline such names and links that directly or indirectly cause to breach my privacy and I request stewards to delet them from this SRCU and the archival. The underlined link of blog is an absolute circular refence meaning ther by privacy discluser has been done on wikipedia has been copy pasted on that blog and smart fellow user:Polkhol has given it back here to create a fake proof.Interestingly that blog does not discuss any wikipedia activity just only copy pastes in between on the blog in very irrelevant manner :(
As far as possible,unless asked specifically by stewards , I am avoiding giving more links from my side here as proofs since those will create again a circular reference on meta to my private data.TO give you a sample , On Marathi Wikipedia one of my critics on Marathi Wikipedia makes statement 'He (That is Mahitgar) had not disclosed his real name ( mentions my real name) for last 6 years unlike other admins like Abhay Natu, Sankalp Drawid, Rahul Deshmukh etc. (Even Jimbo Wales writes with his name)'. So he presents argument not disclosing real name as a sin.
I did not ban all such users immidiatly on Marathi Wikipedia because ,On my part I did not want to send a message that I am a dictator and do not respect valid criticism; rather I will prefer to delet such mentions and use an edit filter (which is already in test phase on mr-wikipedia)
Privacy breach is more of a awareness concern and want to send a strong signal than protection of any personal intrest.Most of my contribution on Marathi Wikipedia are helppage related.If my request could not get accepted , I will need to delet only couple of encyclopedic articles, where I am lone contributor under provision of 'authors own request' (such articlewhich were written before any of disclosures).
Actually I am not necessarilly looking for complete oversight(As a crat I will do that for simmiller breaches against others), but looking for a simple deletion so that private info does not come in direct search results.I am a Gandhian by principle as many times people make mistake that many times I educate them, I belive in educating and awareness and i want mr-wiki community to understand about what is right and what is wrong.
But actually I am more hopefull of steward support in deleting those breaches of privacy by User:Polkhol which are underlined by me for your reference.
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mahitgar,
We just removed the private data about you. Sorry for the delay, but I had to read the whole discussion before finding out what should have been removed. If there is still private info somewhere and you want it removed, really feel free to request us. It's your right per privacy policy, you're completely free to contribute anonymously and Polkhol has no right to reveal your real identity. Just send us a mail at stewards(_AT_) or to me, because requests to remove private info should not been made publicly.
Generally, please note that you can block somebody for revealing knowingly personal information. This is a form of disruption. If it's about you, just ask an other sysop to do it. This is no abuse of the sysop tools.
As for the results of this CU request, I will check this really soon and provide my own interpretation of the CU results. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just review this SRCU request. I cannot guarantee 100% that Mahitgar did not use any other account to contribute, but I didn't see any evidence of abusing sockpuppetry from my check results. I also compared him to the suspected accounts above and they are definitely Unrelated Unrelated.
On the other hand, I certify that the users Ghatikar, Tipyaa, Neetin kadu, पुणेरीपूणेकर and रमश are  Confirmed abusing multiple accounts and do use open proxies. Swarupsing and Dhariyaa are also related to this. The two suspected IPs ( and are open proxies (now globally blocked for a year) and I confirm they have been used by this guy on mrwiki. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tetovo boy Possible Possible Xhemilja, Dukagjinsi, Tanobanushi, Taregermuesi, Futbollisteshqiptare (there is a relationship, and it would be worth politely challenging)
  • Mr. Pseudo  Confirmed Stërgjysh, Adriatik Çela, Idris Ferra, and maybe one other (unused)
  • Babagjysh  Confirmed Arb.iter, Olo4u, Inswik (some of these lock unused)
  • Hatake Inconclusive Inconclusive no evident relationship to any of the above accounts, though other accounts in vicinity, could be a busy range
  • Maja e Lëpjetës Unrelated Unrelated

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steward note: the title of this section reflects the name of the reporting admin, and not for checking or as a concern about sockpuppet. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. But, is it sure that Mr. Pseudo and Tetovo boy are not related? It's been a big deal in our wiki, accusing Tetovo boy as a sock puppet of Mr. Pseudo. --Euriditi (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my interpretation of the data. Note: CU is interpretative of a number of factors, it is not a clear YES/NO area, and there are many ways to adapt behaviour to minimise conicidence. I have a reasonable experience in the field, and the data does not show an evident connection. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment sorry to say it but I hardly believe is big enough to meet requirements to have local checkusers. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment But, does meet the requirements to have 2 local checusers? Less articles, less active users. --Euriditi (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't actually a competition. I would turn it around and say that there are numbers of wikis that have CUs, who probably don't really require them, however, that is something to which you should ask ombudsman commission, as steward's don't have the data for the issues at each wiki, that is local to the wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


X mark.svg Not done, we will not associate a registered account with IP addresses, so unfortunately you will not get what you want. Simply let the user be aware of the rules (or block them depending on the actual situation). --Bencmq (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you!--Рашат Якупов (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Buryat1982  Confirmed as a sock of Губин Михаил. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lies. Really. When I was at his house, I was working with his computer, but now I'm not to blame.--Gubin (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed --Bencmq (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Aplikasi (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. We will not reveal a users IP-address according to the Privacy Policy. -- Tegel (Talk) 01:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The RfA was withdrawn by Leemon2010 shortly after this checkuser request was made. Please also note that BD24 was originally created at Leemon2010's homewiki, bnwiki. I don't want to accuse them of manipulation without any proof, but I see sufficient evidence to perform CU in this case. Regards --Iste (D) 16:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly was a "manipulation"? Ruslik (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leemon2010 candidated himself for adminship, but he didn't get support, and BD24 (registered today on Wikidata, with few contributions) was the only who voted in favor... --Ricordisamoa 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following accounts are  Confirmed to belong to one user:
Curiouss Artist
Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Ricordisamoa 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]