Steward requests/Checkuser/2015-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 February 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Stho002@species.wikimedia.org

Status:    Done
List of users
Stho002 ([[
Special:Contributions/Stho002|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Stho002|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
ZooBank ([[
Special:Contributions/ZooBank|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/ZooBank|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): species:User:Stho002 has a history of using socket puppets on the english Wikipedia, where en:User:Stho002 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stho002/Archive). species:User:Stho002 has been blocked several times on Wikispecies, and during block discussions the 9th of Jan, accounts species:User:BiodiverseCity was created 9 januari 2015 01.11 and species:User:Biota was created 9 januari 2015 01.13, 24 minutes after discussions about a block of species:User:Stho002 started. The user Stho002 put up a sign "retired" on his userpage at 18:39 on 28th of January, made negative remarks about fellow users (fuckwits, incompetent fools, dummy spitting toddlers) and the project 19.26 on the Village pump (Diff) and at 20:16 started to vandalize the project, by emptying articles of text during the night until he was blocked next morning, see block log. The following day user account ZooBank was created 21:22 and started to make edits with a significant similarity to User:Stho002, see ZooBank contributions Dan Koehl (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed Stho002, ZooBank, Biota and BiodiverseCity. No evidence of collateral damage if range block is needed, though it is something that would require vigilance and a means for users caught into the future to seek IP exemption.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast assistance. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-staar@en.wikiquote

Status:    Done
List of users
Wiki-staar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Jody Fosteur (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
DerangedMann (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
O Karoline! (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Oh My God!! Im About To Cu-! (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
AeroSoftGum18 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
172.56.4.162 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Alabaster (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Here I am, Thursday... (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Feels so good! Mourning wood... (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Known on en.wikipedia as w:User:Dragonron (and w:User:Wiki-star at en.wikipedia and previously on en.wikiquote as q:User:Wiki-star). Requesting investigation of w:User:Dragonron/q:User:Wiki-star/q:User:Wikistaar at en.wikiquote, to help slow down this socking and vandalism perhaps with some rangeblocks. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The following aggregated IP addresses and associated ranges might be related:
  • 166.147.118.210
  • 166.147.120.147
  • 166.147.123.24
  • 166.147.123.30
  • 166.205.48.98
  • 166.205.55.36
  • 166.205.55.44
  • 172.56.1.4
  • 172.56.27.65
  • 172.56.28.42
  • 172.56.33.183

All above IP addresses have been blocked previously on en.wikiquote for similar spates of vandalism.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

One addition = Hellpraiser (talk · contribs) link, returned after a three (3) year absence. Impressive that the vandal / sockmaster still knows his password after that long. -- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also please correlate check with Sir Knolte (talk · contribs), link, another account dormant for three (3) years, only to come back today, seemingly still knows its password. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Now see also https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.113.150.24 -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And also https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.113.150.22 -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done accounts locked, and other measures take to address concerns. To note the IP data is another known vandal, and if that point of origin vandal continues stewards have data for that xwiki vandal that can be applied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Which vandal is the other one? -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Two more = [1] and [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!!! -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more please: [3] and [4] -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also check these: [5], [6], [7] -- for blocks on underlying IPs, and rangeblocks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
See Dragonluvr55, it's possible this one might be unrelated, please let me know either way. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
More to check, please [8] -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
One more at [9] -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
ANOTHER [10] -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Blocked some ranges. Unlikely that Dragonluvr55 is related. Mathonius (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

م.سخایی@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
م.سخایی (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Hananeh.M.h (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Samaneh-davoudi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dostatdaram (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
‏Mhhossein (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Based on this, and because of the cooperation in some Article of deletion and also editting several sensetive articles ( like 1 and 2) together and suddenly with a similar pattern. Thanks Sahehco (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I was able to match the following two groups of accounts. I haven't been able to connect both groups to eachother though.

Group 1
Group 2

I hope this helps. Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much--Sahehco (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sakis Sg@el.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Lonesome Warrior (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Sakis Sg (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Both have the same arguments - expression in the discussion of the position of the Potami party, but don't have lots of other contribution. Before or after contributing as login in users there were edits by ip 188.4.X.X. Looks like puppets and possibly there may be more users. --C messier (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed for Lonesome Warrior, Sakis Sg and Liberal36 + some IPs, taking a look at page history I'd even say  It looks like a duck to me. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stho002@species.wikimedia.org

Status:    Done
List of users
Stho002 ([[
Special:Contributions/Stho002|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/Stho002|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
BioLibrarian ([[
Special:Contributions/BioLibrarian|contr]] · [[
Special:DeletedContributions/BioLibrarian|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): species:User:Stho002 has a history of using socket puppets on the english Wikipedia, where en:User:Stho002 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts). So far three of his previous socket puppets accounts, ZooBank, Biota and BiodiverseCity, has been blocked on Wikispecies. It is believed that species:User:BioLibrarian is yet a new sock puppet for species:User:Stho002. If confirmed, species:User:Mariusm request range block. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed and I will leave blocking of the account to local admins; other measures initiated. I will hazard a guess that they will avoid it and come back, and we can broaden measures. If there is symptomatic posting then we could look to spam filters too.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for your fast assistance! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Don't worry, blocking me may have given you a "hard on", but I have no intention of giving you the full orgasm. I have much better things to do than come back to these stupid Wikimedia sites, which are little more than social experiments gone bad, giving control freaks the power to form angry mobs. You are the king here Billinghurst, but the king of nothing of any significance or value. The hypocrisy is astonishing. @Dan Koehl: and his mob of followers have been allowed to get away unchallenged with all sorts of breaches of policy and even breaches of terms and conditions, while any little mistake I make gets blown up out of all proportion, twisted, and used against me. The irony is that Koehl is just dishing out to me what he is on the receiving end of on svWP (see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Village_Pump#My_block_on_Swedish_Wikipedia). Ciao, Stho002 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhj973@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Nersy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Zeddefesad (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Emam_moghavayi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
جویا کیان (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mhj973 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): user Nersy has interested in bahai studies, project and writing. this user was banned for Sock puppetry for ever, but he continues his editing on bahai's contiguous entries. for example you can see (this & this) or (this & this) or (this & this).--Chakmakk (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to check, there has been checks before and result is still on this page. Mardetanha talk 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
+Obvious duck about Nersy and Zeddefesad Amir (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
i want to sure that users (جویا کیان & Mhj973) are Sock puppet or not. --Chakmakk (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No community consensus for checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indra Narayan Banerjee@bn.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Subhro Acharyya (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Sukhen Banerjee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Bakul Acharyya (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Kalyan Acharyya (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dolgobindo Acharyya (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Krishna Banerjee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dr. Sukhen Banerjee (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): When Indra Narayan Banerjee's invalid creations were nominated for deletion (2nd time), then these users created their account and came on board to contest the deletion by repeating each others comments. ~ Nahid Talk 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@NahidSultan: why do we need a check user? The community doesn't need to have a checkuser to resolve the discussion. The usernames would indicate either a sock or a close association between the accounts. Close associations may not be distinguishable anyway. What does knowing whether they are socks do with your handling?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Community asked for it. I'd agree that username maybe a sock or close to each other but before taking any action on the basis of sock, I'd rather want 100% confirmation. ~ Nahid Talk 09:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed, all accounts  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Te veo bien@es.wikivoyage

Status:    Done
List of users
Te veo bien (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Geógrafo23 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Suspect socketpuppetry of Geo23, a cross-wiki systematic vandal who created hundred of accounts to disrupt community and contents. [11]

The CU can be also performed with other of the puppets of Geo23. See also nl:Wikipedia:Checklijst langdurig structureel vandalisme/Geógrafo23 to get a almost complete list of puppets. Maybe will be useful to perform also a CU in eswikipedia. Zerabat (discusión) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. The original account is of course stale, but I compared it with the recorded data about Geo23. --MF-W 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Toleranciahoy@es.wikiquote

Status:    Done
List of users
Toleranciahoy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
84.79.240.33 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
ZIV88 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
IYAR 70 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Citadme (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): The user shows the same behavior and makes similar edition to a long term vandal that has been harassing other users and vandalizing wikiquote and wikipedia for several years. Fjsalguero (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Inconclusive Inconclusive for one day's edit it is pretty hard to draw much in the way of conclusions. No evidence of any tie between current data and historical data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Salt100@et.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Salt100 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): The same user that the community asked to check for in earlier checkuser case is vandalizing etwiki again. It would be appreciated if you could place multiple range blocks (that would cover the IP-s of Salt100 and previous SalsXXX usernames) or if you could reveal the IP aadresses so that we can do it ourselves. Also, could you kindly tell us what file needs to be edited to "direct users to your admin pages at somewhere like meta"? Cumbril (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my last question, am I right that someone potentially affected by an IP block would see the text entered into the Reason input field of the blocking html-form while trying to log in? So that's where we need to direct users to admin pages at meta? Cumbril (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed as same vandal by provider. If you wish to redirect users with a message, the simplest way is to reblock the ranges and put in a specific message that points users to an alternate place. I would suggest that the alternate place is a local wikipage which gives the required instructions, eg. some wikilinks to admins pages at meta, which might give further information. As these are soft blocks, users can login once they have an account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: There was one more attack by the same vandal: now under username Salt101, [12]. Since I'm going to send a letter to the internet service provider (or set up a soft block if the letter does not do the trick), could you send me the IP-s of these two last cases. I was forwarded previous IP-s, would like to have them all. Will contact you by stewards@wikimedia.org. I'm et.wiki admin user. Cumbril (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Status:    Done
List of users
Salt101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Please provide a reason.

 Confirmed and doing a followup to my first reply to your message in stewards' OTRS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Skettos7@el.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Picker78 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Gtrbolivar (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Bakalisb (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Skettos7 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Gavros (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): There seems to be a close relation between, at least, the accounts of Gtrbolivar, Bakalisb and Skettos7, as they have the same type of contributions, with their interest being centered in articles like Πανελλήνιος Γ.Σ., Αθλητική Ένωση Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ολυμπιακός Σύνδεσμος Φιλάθλων Πειραιώς or Παναθηναϊκός Αθλητικός Όμιλος. But where the problem is, it's at the fact that those three accounts have the same type of argumentation and the same kind of acting, which means reverting (blindly in my opinion) every contribution which is not ok with their personnal beliefs and can have the same rather aggressive talk when someone tells them publically that he disagrees with them. Also, what is making me think that we have here a sock-puppeting case is the fact that all those accounts don't appear all at once but for separate periods ex. for two months (I might be wrong about the length of that time period...) you have only Bakalisb contributing, and then he disappears and you have, for example, Gtrbolivar appearing from nowhere when he was inactive for around two-three months (again I might be wrong about the time length)... Well, let's say that all of this makes the whole situation rather suspicious. And as for Picker78, I think he's the puppet creator as in the past he was, already, suspected for creating puppets and he had the same type of contributions and argumentation with the mentioned before users... Thanks in advance...

PS. Sorry for any english mistakes... Glorious 93 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just found a previous personal checkuser demand which proved the fact that Picker78 is a recognized and publicly admitted puppet-maker... Thanks again...--Glorious 93 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, Bakalisb is a serious contributor and he/she is not involved in this on going sock-puppeting case. On the other hand, Gavros (active from April to July 2014) seems to had shared identical interests, argumentation and bad temper with Skettos7 (account creation in December 2014). --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Has this matter been discussed at elWP? The request should be discussed at that wiki prior to progressing here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Every time we (as users) want to discuss such matters (sock puppetry cases) with admins at el@wiki, they tell us first to ask for a checkuser so we can prove that our suspicions are right and, then, start a discussion about taking measures against those users if the checkuser is positive. So, I don't think that sending back the problem to el@wiki (and then being told, again, to send it to meta) would help in this case and in sock puppetry cases in general. Some of these two bodies (el@wiki admins and meta stewards) has to take a decision and sending (indirectly of course) the problem to each other won't help in that direction. Just an example to prove you what I'm saying here, in a quite similar case, with an obvious puppet, an admin responded me by saying "Κανείς διαχειριστής ή γραφειοκράτης δεν έχει δυνατότητα διαπίστωσης μαριονέτας (ή μη) στην ελληνόφωνη ΒΠ. Αν έχεις σχετικές υπόνοιες μπορείς να ζητήσεις Checkuser στο meta."-"No admin or bureaucrat is able to prove if a user is a puppet or not on el@wiki. If you have any suspicions you can ask for a Checkuser on meta." And there are numerous cases like this with this same (or nearly) answer from admins. Letting down the matter wouldn't help at all.--Glorious 93 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Having multiple accounts is not contrary to WMF policy, so that itself is not a consideration for stewards. For a local policy for stewards to run a checkuser the checkuser policy directs us that a conversation should take place on the local wiki, so where a general user has a case it should be supported on the local wiki by those who are charged with enforcing the policy. In this case I believe that we need a local discussion at elWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Closed Closed stale discussion, no comment for a week.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ridler o arnold@bg.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Ridler o arnold (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Edson endo de cury brenelli (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Brenelli thais marcos rocha (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Jennifer love brenelli (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Katrina kaif deepika padubot (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): These are multiple accounts with only one vandalism edit. Please track and block them globally. Maybe there are more usernames, please check. Петър Петров (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I locked Ridler o arnold. All other accounts are already locked. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Петър Петров (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Idoll-olga@no.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Idoll-olga (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Admiral Gjødsel-magnet (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mahandba (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Olavs lakei (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Basse flagger (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Spåkornet (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Furubra (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Hjerneiling (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Ogaysiis (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Paprikais (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Extensive sockpuppetry, main account indefinitely blocked on both nowp and enwp (no:Bruker:Sju hav/w:User:Sju hav) in 2008. Has been very active lately, and all accounts listed above exept for the first have been blocked based on behaviour and topics of interest (Ogaysiis was also blocked on enwp after a local CU). Idoll-olga was created today, and although the contributions so far have been "innocent", the behaviour is quite recognisable: Starting by asking questions on talk pages, adding text (often trivial) citing newspaper articles, some "finger prints" in the edit pattern that I would prefer not to disclose openly. 4ing (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
All those accounts are confirmed sockpuppets from one of two IPs (one mobile the other fixed). Scargsmint, Elis20005 and Video Frankenstein are three socks not included in that list, though the last is already blocked. I'm not sure if they are good candidates for a global lock given that some accounts appear to be editing productively; if another stewards wants to look into it further they are free too. I need to go and write a test now. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have blocked two of the accounts not already blocked. - 4ing (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Badieem@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
Badieem (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
امید ایرانی (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Hananeh.M.h (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Viator313 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mhhossein (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
م.سخایی (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Trying to create an illusion of support in articles about Iranian government and Islam. Amir (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed for Viator313, م.سخایی, Hananeh.M.h and also Srahmadi, حسین وحید and M.Sakhaie (all blocked on commonswiki for sockpuppet abuse)
Likely Likely for امید ایرانی
Unlikely Unlikely for امید ایرانی, Mhhossein and Badieem. Elfix 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Updated Elfix 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

تولیش@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Done
List of users
تولیش (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Polkash (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Iroony (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dakhoox (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): They have the similar edits at 1 and 2 - 3- 4 - 5 -6 -7

also they vote at fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست‌های مدیر شدن/Arash.pt with the same opinion
also user:تولیش made a diff page at fa:کاربر:تولیش/صفحه تمرین which supports it's other users edits.
Iroony has many users please tell also the othersYamaha5 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be three different users, though each has a sock
  •  Confirmed تولیش and شاه بابل
  •  Confirmed فرارو and Iroony
  •  Confirmed Polkash, Manoooood and LOVAKO
 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yamaha5 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhj973@fa.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
جویا کیان (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
nersy (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Dostatdaram (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Xyzrt (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Badieem (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mhj973 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
حسام سین (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Alirezamim (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Parsian Poems (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Mohsens (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): user nersy is banned for Persecution of Bahá'ís and supporting government's ideology and propoganda and shiite Fanatics, subsequently using suck puppet for Bypass sanctions, which bring Exclusion for ever. also users: Parsian Poems and Dostatdaram had been compromised for suck puppet. see edit's history of انتخابات بهائی, کتاب اقدس, تساوی حقوق زن و مرد در دین بهائی, چارلز میسون ریمی, نقد بابیه, خطاب به جوانان اروپا و آمریکای شمالی. thx--Ab&bargh (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment User Ab&bargh is sockpupet himself and is blocked in fawiki 13:02, Mardetanha User talk:Mardetanha 28 February 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done please present consensus at faWP for this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As much as I don't agree with behavior of this reporter, I don't agree with behavior users who this user reported, all of them are violent with NPOV, it's truly says that this user is actively edits against Iranian government which is against NPOV, I also checked some of edits by users who are reported, adding content to support Iranian government and telling will add the references or adding non-trusted resources, it seems some of them might match and already blocked in fawiki. some of fawiki admins can't take action against users being supportive with Iranian government because they live in Iran. if there is policy called "suckpopet" it must act same for all, not only for some specific users. could you please tell me where is the consensus for other two requests? Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This request was disputed. This was also a longer list of names and contained names of users previously checked. As it is a seemingly coverall rquest, rather than a specific case it is closer to fishing, which is not the basis for checkuser and without a better evidence-base it should not be undertaken. Administrators at faWP are aware of alternate means to have checkuser requests undertaken if required. Further, I doubt that we should be taking requests from sockpuppets who will not be able to implement any result from a checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To note that stewards undertaking checkusers is neither for nor against pro-/anti-government editing, it is for sock puppetry as per the policy. The community will decide about specific editing on the wiki, that is not the role of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you we should not accept request from sockpuppets, but you said consensus. My latest CU request was also not done while I was the admin that wiki. according to [13] User:Dostatdaram was already matched and blocked. User:Badieem also has a very violent edits with NPOV, reed this, even a machine translated would say what this is about, it truly says there is no freedom for news reporters in the U.S. relying on an Iranian internal source, the content is still there, wikipedia is not what it suppose to be. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gagik18@hy.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Gagik18 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Lakiditto098 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Hi, please check whether there is a link between the participants. --6AND5 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Where are these users participants and what makes you think there could be a link? --MF-W 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[14], participant (Lakiditto098) said that his brother allegedly Gagik (Gagik18).--6AND5 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[15]--6AND5 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@6AND5: that still doesn't indicate the purpose of knowing that they are related parties. An interest in a relationship alone is not a reason for checkuser. There would be need for a proof of wrongdoing, circumventing votes, circumventing blocks, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is that the participant (Lakiditto098 (same 1221nor, Lilit1345, Karenpetrosyan)The following accounts are  Confirmed) is blocked (unlimited), and now his brother allegedly began to write articles. --6AND5 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is his brother that may or may not mean the same IP address. It may or may not mean the same user agents, etc. There is nothing that we can do that is going to differentiate that sort of relationship and you will need to work it out for yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Member admitted he and his brother one person.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Closed Closed Issue resolved by community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, а можно показывать все новые записи этого участника в армянской Википедии [16] [17]?--6AND5 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi@en.wikipedia

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi

With reference to previous investigation Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi/Archive can the following two can be identified as the Sockpuppet.

Reason: Keeps on adding and supporting about Shahzad Ali Najmi and his book, used for commercial advertising.

As the previous Sockpuppets which were Blocked in English Wikipedia and later on Urdu Wikipedia, these two users are acting as the same.

Status:    Not done
List of users
Nida Farooqi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Farha Zeba (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Farinakhan74 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Keeps on adding and supporting about Shahzad Ali Najmi and his book, used for commercial advertising. (English Wikipedia) --Tahir mq (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Status:    Not done
List of users
Nida Farooqi (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Farha Zeba (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Farinakhan74 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Keeps on adding and supporting about Shahzad Ali Najmi and his book, used for commercial advertising. (Urdu Wikipedia) --Tahir mq (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please confirm if the are Sockpuppets. --Tahir mq (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. En.wiki has local checkusers. Savhñ 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gagik18@hy.wikipedia

Status:    Not done
List of users
Gagik18 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Lakiditto098 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): Hi, please check whether there is a link between the participants. --6AND5 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Where are these users participants and what makes you think there could be a link? --MF-W 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[18], participant (Lakiditto098) said that his brother allegedly Gagik (Gagik18).--6AND5 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[19]--6AND5 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@6AND5: that still doesn't indicate the purpose of knowing that they are related parties. An interest in a relationship alone is not a reason for checkuser. There would be need for a proof of wrongdoing, circumventing votes, circumventing blocks, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is that the participant (Lakiditto098 (same 1221nor, Lilit1345, Karenpetrosyan)The following accounts are  Confirmed) is blocked (unlimited), and now his brother allegedly began to write articles. --6AND5 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is his brother that may or may not mean the same IP address. It may or may not mean the same user agents, etc. There is nothing that we can do that is going to differentiate that sort of relationship and you will need to work it out for yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Member admitted he and his brother one person.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Closed Closed Issue resolved by community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, а можно показывать все новые записи этого участника в армянской Википедии [20] [21]?--6AND5 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser/2015-02&oldid=11505566"