Steward requests/Checkuser/2013-05

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.



Parsa Amoli (پارسا آملی) is blocked in commons! He is real troll and vandal in any project.--MehdiTalk 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, the edits of Asianleag and Sportmaker do not overlap, either chronologically (Sportmaker started editing after Asianleg was blocked) or over specific IPs. However, they overlap ranges and their technical evidence is consistent with standard updating of software over time. So I would say that this is Possible Possible based on the technical evidence. As always, behavioral evidence is key in determining sock/meat puppetry. -- Avi (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Taha (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


  • Likely Likely
  • Unrelated Unrelated
  • Stale Stale

-- Avi (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Everyone know User:Mervzi in as someone who corrupts articles. He removes all edits by admins. His previous accounts were banned and his current account was banned for 1 week. I don't have any other accounts but like other Iranian Users in Iran, sometimes I have to use proxies to access/login Wiki. (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment to steward as a non-involved user, this check-user looks fishing to me. All the users mentioned above are active (1000+ edits) users who just oppose the ideology of user:Mervzi. Taha (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This request is obvious nonsense from a blocked user. --MF-W 04:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I truly believe is a real troll. I was blocked by Mehran after I created this in Meta and I am protesting about his mistake. Please check because we have to know which one is his main account. Thanks--Mervzi (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Mervzi blocked for Wikipedia:No personal attacks and this is the sixth time in five months that he has been blocked !! (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I really think is related to Mehran or Samaksasanian, because this troll behave similarly to Samaksasanian and also after I created this Request, Mehran blocked me. Please check it quickly.--Mervzi (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a non-involved sysop and member of ArbCom (which we had a case about Mervzi recently) I say This user (Mervzi) is a troll and he's doing w:WP:DE and he's violating w:WP:POINT here Amir (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Ladsgroup, Mehran and several others are members of a band/mafia of sysops in Persian Wikipedia that help each other in these times and they have been blocked several times by bureaucrats because of their doings. Persian Wikipedia is in a very bad status.--Mervzi (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the joke! Are u OK?--MehdiTalk 14:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Note: user is blocked on sr.wikipedia as a sockpuppet. --Rschen7754 09:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there accusation of you being connected to this particular IP to begin with? I don't think so, based on (low-quality) google translation. --Bencmq (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: You again but deliberately doing what you're doing is your evil intentions. What does a Serbian Wikipedia and Commons? This is one of your more dirty and sleazy game. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bencmq: I do not use Google translate. I just want to check it out there because it's obvious to me that IP address crashes vote there. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment I'm not comfortable with doing this request, because CheckUser cannot prove that there is no relation between two users. But I can advise you to request your unblock if you've been only blocked based on suspictions. And by the way, I don't see what's wrong with Rschen's intervention here. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Quentinv57: I not blocked it to prove that I'm not no one there sockpuppet. There have only my bot. See here. --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed as  Not done, as self-requested CU isn't a good way to 'clear oneself'. Also I don't see sufficient grounds for a check anyway. There has also been communication difficulties when the user approached me. Anyone that speaks this language and willing to help translate would be appreciated. --Bencmq (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


Comment Comment I did not accuse, I confirmed. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
After discussing with Vive la Rosière here, I understand that she didn't know that my "accusation" was made based on a past CU result.
Confirmed Confirmed Nebogipfel = Redirectionneur Phou
Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've checked at the French Wiktionary and found out that Nebogipfel is ocassionally editing 'anonymously' (with his IP address) and then reverting or tagging his own edits with his account. He often created redirect loops or self-redirects: pages with titles like (for example) "5!" and only containing a redirect like "#REDIRECT [[5!]]". Judging by the past behaviour and deleted contributions of Redirectionneur Phou (see for example this deleted page), I'm convinced they're one and the same person. Mathonius (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Subordonald (mixing sailors, gsthae with tempo, spiderman electrified). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all, sorry for the disturbance. I didn't understand he has been already checked before by Quentin. Indeed no doubt can subsist, so Quentin's affirmation during the election was totally valid. My apologizes. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 04:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Stale Stale: both accounts haven't been used recently, so it's not possible to retrieve any information about them using the checkuser tool. Mathonius (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed Confirmed:

  • Almotacé
  • Virissimo
  • GrandeSuro
  • Tasqueiro
  • Liberto
  • Tossan
  • João do Telhado
  • João Capador

Unrelated Unrelated: Geovana Pereira --Shizhao (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


  • Inconclusive Inconclusive Other than they all are editing from the same geopolitical entity, the other technical evidence is inconclusive in my opinion. Whether they are truly unrelated will depend on the behavioral evidence. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

anyways thanks mr Avraham . i checked check user's archieve where 1 of above ids (فلورانس) was checked already and the result was showing aliahmad201132 ، مازیاربندانی and him(فلورانس) are same persons along with his flobot(فلورانس's bot) . but i am over 95% sure damavandi and saltanat ebli are also same persons , this user has so many usernames to use them to cheat in elections like once he told his friend as slang that " i have brought 3 id cards to vote for some administration candidate". btw i would thank you so much if u try and check above usernames once again dear Avraham.Tehranpizzaparlor (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

i found a recent pole where damavandi votes + for what فلورانس asks

Could you help?[edit]

Status:    Not done

I request to check this editing made ​​on behalf of DarDar. I do not remember that I made ​​those changes and I suspect, someone other has edited under my name. Thanks in advance, --DarDar (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you to change your password to a strong one if you've not done that already. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
... apart from MarcoAurelio's suggestion, the request is rather outside the scope of CU, so I'll close this as  Not done. --Bencmq (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity, because there were heated discussions about "delphic articles": [1] & [2]. Therefore I would like to know, is it possible, that this editing was made from external (not mine) computer? Could you check only this editing, please. Thanks a lot in advance for the answer. --DarDar (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1) It is not possible to just check one edit, without getting the full userdata (or a fraction of them) first. 2) CU doesn't prove innocence; even if the edit appears to be done from a different computer or location, we'll still won't be able to say with 100% certitude that you were not the one that made the edit. But since you seem rather concerned, I'll ask for more eyes to review this. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it was an accident caused by being unfamiliar with the Wikidata interface. --Rschen7754 11:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
At 14:39 on 13 March 2013, a bot moved the interwikis for the article to Wikidata. This was an article DarDar had edited before. Two minutes later the edit by DarDar was made on Wikidata. I strongly suspect, as Rschen7754 suggests, that you changed the Wikidata entry by mistake when reviewing the change made by the bot QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear checkusers, I am very grateful for your explanations and willingness to help! --DarDar (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed Confirmed, plus Hojoom --Bencmq (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 Not done No check necessary here, it more looks like a "meatpuppet". Anyway this one vote of a user with 2 edits won't have influenced the granting of temp. adminship much. --MF-W 18:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

but i need to know this. Coz If the result is confirmed, then i can report in local community. Thanks Aftab1995 (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's unlikely that there is a manipulative use of multiple accounts here, because the value of the vote can already be determined quite easily thanks to the explanation of the voter himself ("He is my classmate."). The checkuser tool is an instrument that shouldn't be used if it's not necessary, because it might violate a user's privacy. There's no need to check and no need to know even more than we already know. Mathonius (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


Seems Unrelated Unrelated Matanya (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


Why exactly? Can you explain where the abuse is? Can you give us some diffs? Trijnsteltalk 12:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. User cheating in the vote for selected articles in Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Rjecina2 Administrator has blocked all four accounts permanently. --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All are Confirmed Confirmed and I also found these unblocked sockpuppets:
There might be more, but I can't tell for sure. Trijnsteltalk 13:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed Confirmed --Bencmq (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed Confirmed and no more sockpuppets right now. Trijnsteltalk 20:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Губин Михаил@bxr.wikipedia[edit]

 Not done No requirement determined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Why? This IP have vandal contribous and his style of communication similar on style Губин Михаил.--Region190 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If the wiki needs a checkuser, I am sure that the administrators will contact us. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I undestand.--Region190 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The user actually admitted on his talk page that the the IP address is his. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oc Verder@sh.wikipedia[edit]

Unrelated Unrelated--Shizhao (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


Picker78, Dionisia Bekri and Rainbow Demon were confirmed as socks on en.wikipedia and therefore do not need a further check. Greek Picker passes the Duck test - not just the name but the crosswiki contribution history (e.g., here) and finally PAO 1910 will be stale as there are no actions for 5 months, so CU will return no data. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
PAO 1910 is actually confirmed on enwiki per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Picker78/Archive. --Rschen7754 05:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, missed that one somehow QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against Mr. Kousounelos. Panathinaikos was actually founded in 1910, no matter what the official story says. One day truth will be restored. Glorious 93 is still very young, this is why he talks nonsense. Grow up first kid. Picker78 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Moderation in choice of words would be quite appropriate for a proven sockpuppetter. --MF-W 19:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have 100 sockpuppets. So what? My sockpuppets' contribution in Wikipedia (english & greek) is very serious. I just like having sockpuppets. This doesn't mean I want to destroy Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets is wrong. My sockpuppets are always doing a serious job. Picker78 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some projects have a policy against sockpuppets, regardless of your intentions QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a deal! Instead of letting me create new sockpuppets all the time, just unblock the sockmaster (Picker78) and everything will be OK. What do you say? Picker78 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


The following users are Confirmed Confirmed :
  • NatigKrolik
  • Natig98
  • Chuchka.shinshilly
  • Krolik2005
  • Natig98bot
  • NatigBot
I didn't check Maurice07 as he's clearly unrelated to me. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)