Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AdilBaguirov

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

AdilBaguirov (7th request)

 * (see also: rfcu)
 * s:User:AdilBaguirov
 * (added 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * (see also: rfcu)
 * s:User:AdilBaguirov
 * (added 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * s:User:AdilBaguirov
 * (added 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * s:User:AdilBaguirov
 * (added 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * (added 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

In the arbcom case, a laundry list of possibly related users has been raised here, and more specific accusations are being raised here The above list of usernames is all of the usernames/IP mentioned in that diff. VartanM might like to add more here. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter - B


 * - as this involves an active ArbCom case, shouldn't this be handled by the Arbitration Committee directly rather than here, as it seems to be an integral part of the case mentioned? Most arbitrators are also checkusers. At the very least, I'm thinking that ArbCom could issue an interim finding on all this - A l is o n  ❤ 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Ehud case is about the link between Ehud and Adil, so I am not expecting CU to issue a new finding between them. The evidence presented includes many, many usernames, because everyone is trying to provide links that could eventually join Ehud and Adil more conclusively, so many of these could be very tangential to the case.  Also, these theories are not going to go away unless there is a thorough CU.  Any links between these users need to be in the open so that the parties and pundits know which links are valid and which arn't.
 * Also, this involves Wikisource, so a steward is also required, and an existing RFCU is also involved.
 * If this results in any new evidence (conclusive or otherwise), the arbs will no doubt double check it. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to augment this request; there is concern that there is malice in my omission of IP address 69.143.131.204, so I've now added it; this diff should explain why it is being included. I omitted it because I didnt see that it need to be listed - AFAICS either it is an IP address of that user, and the CU will have noticed and included it in their analysis, or it isn't the IP address of that user. Anyway, this request is about clarity, so I request a little more. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Results
Please let me know if you have more questions. Interested CUs can contact me for a copy of the results of the checks I ran. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have run a check on AdilBaguirov on en:ws and have the data available to other CUs on request. I will work on this case as time permits but may not get to the en:wp checks till perhaps later today. I am leaving CU turned on for me there for a bit as I may need to check other IPs... ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did get a chance to do some more checks. What is being asked for seems a bit vague but here goes:
 * 212.38.111.120 and 212.38.115.56 are ✅ as related. It is but not certain that 82.118.137.238 is the same user as well. No relation to other users listed. No activity on en:ws ... I did not check the contribs to see if there are issues.
 * Sisternarmin and Malikbek are ✅ as the same user or two closely related users (this is per admission of Malikbek here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ehud_Lesar/Proposed_decision so not exactly a surprise). I did not check the contribs to see if there are issues. No edits on en:ws
 * Correction. The CU findings corroborate the admission, the connection asserted is per the findings, not the admission. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AdilBaguirov - ... not surprisingly (nothing changed from last check). I ran checks on en:ws and the user edits from a single IP there. Did not check to validate if it is the same user or not and did not check the edits themselves for issues.
 * Ehud Lesar - ❌ to other users. I did not check the contribs to see if there are issues. No edits on en:ws
 * that Verjakette is related to Merjanov... I did not check the contribs to see if there are issues. No edits on en:ws. no relations to other listed users.
 * Question: Does Verjakette have an interest in Age of Secrets? I discovered a nest of apparent socks which are apparently unrelated to Verjakette (but might be) editing this article (and getting reverted for various problems) from one of Verjakette's IPs. The IP is a non portable one so I'm confused. Can some interested admin contact me for more info on that please?
 * see also Suspected sock puppets/Peterx45678, I reported the incidental findings related to Age of Secrets there. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum, per Jayvdb's addendum. (I have no idea why there's malice involved in omission of something but whatever) The diff confirms the user is not trying to hide the fact, and it is ✅ that Merjanov == 69.143.131.204 ... As stated before Merjanov is not related to any other user given (if I had found anything else on the IP I would have done more cross correlation.), and so, neither is the IP. Also nothing on en:ws was found. Hope that clarifies. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, not related except possibly to Verjakette... can't rule it out but it's not definite. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * someone maybe should mention on en:ws that these checks were run. Perhaps in the Scriptorium... I guess I will. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Is Merjanov and 69.143.131.204 from here related with AdilBaguirov on Wikisource according to their location? Is it too late to ask to see if Londium is related to any of those? My evidence almost certainly confirms it is Ehud, I just want to know if Londium is related to any other users. Checking those other accounts may help. Also Lar, your findings are interesting on the association of Verjakette with other socks. Adil has been doing similar stuff, including probably using other users IP when they are open proxies. Here we have another IP which was most certainly used by Adil. You will see that he is acting as a vandal not related to the case. But more scrutiny reveals Adil. Like this edit of the article he always had a problem with and attempted to remove the information. Or those edits, , or when the IP removed reference to the Kurds and Armenians from Lachin. . An article also edited by Melikbek (interestingly the locations the suspected socks of Adil have edited were edited by Melikbek) who expended the Talysh Khanate article. Is there a way to run a checkuser and extend it to Russian Wikipedia? This suggest that there may be something to be found there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VartanM (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 February 2008  (and slightly amended at 16:48 UTC)
 * - I am a steward, i can run checks anywhere if there is reason for it (or, preferably, involve local CUs). However... I need specific diffs that demonstrate a compelling reason to run a check. Some of the above isn't that, it's assertions and links to contributions. I don't (nor do most other CUs) have time to go through contribution logs looking for reasons to run a check. I will look into the IP when I get a chance though. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, my last comment regarding Russian Wikipedia was because the person who made the edits (last diff) pointed to Russia, Adil was if I remember correctly in Russia during that period for his post-doc. I know I sound obsessed, but its impossible for me to act otherwise. I don't believe in a coincidence of one account starting to edit when the other one just stopped. So I was wondering if the last user(last diff) would correspond geographically or ISP to one of the IPs used by Adil. There may be impersonations of Armenians over in Russian Wikipedia which I am suspecting. VartanM (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have AdilBaguirov's old IPs and his Wikisource one's from a recent check. It is he is Merjanov based on geographical similarity, but the ISPs are not the same. Dmcdevit·t 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am moving all the following comments to the talk page in order to keep this page to a reasonable length. Please do not discuss the merits of CU here, but on the talk page. -- lucasbfr  talk 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov (6th request)

 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan


 * Comment: User:AdilBaguirov's ban was extended, based on identification of User:Londium as a sock User:AdilBaguirov by User:Alex Bakharev - here. The checkuser is pending, while the only (that I found) explanation provided here by User:Spartaz as "off-wiki communication" with User:Alex Bakharev and analysis of edits by User:J.smith. Atabek 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, as if this was required to have a reset of the ban when Adil is raining in with his multiple sockpuppets. Why request a checkuser... sounds right now that his Ehud account still sticks, an alleged Jew who merely reverts to your and Grandmaster’s versions and is concentrated in Armenian-Azeri related articles and who only returns to Jewish contributions when other editors wonder about him. Francis Tyers suspected him being Adil even though Ehud was reverting to his own version. Had this been his only account we could close our eyes, but that he keeps parallel accounts like Artaxiad has done, keeping one clean and leaving the dirty job for other creations of his would more than enough justify a reset, a little price to pay considering that he's still contributing (Ehud) without any consequences. - Fedayee 05:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehud is not Adil, this was established by checkuser below. Grandmaster 06:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

❌. Too stale to directly check. But checking against old likely sock DrAlban, they are not related.  Voice -of- All  15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov (5th request)

 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Likely sock of AdilBaguirov based on contributions. Eloghlu's first edits were to engage in an article where was involved in. He has also engaged in revert warring on the Azerbaijani people article, see his contributions. AdilBaguirov has previously been caught using open proxies and hosting IPs.Hajji Piruz 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

❌.  Voice -of- All  04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov (4th request)


Likely to be the Adil due to activity on similar, obscure, articles. See contributions for details. - Francis Tyers · 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: D - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter: D - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Code letter: D - B (Arbcom ban) Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan


 * I second this request. This "new" user is edit warring on the same pages where confirmed sockpuppets of the banned user AdilBaguirov had edit warred on, see the previous RFUC for AdilBaguirov. I would also like to add that AdilBaguirov has previously been caught using open proxies and hosting IPs, and assuming imposter identities/nationalities. (please see  and the previous check user ) Hajji Piruz 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added Qurultay due to his recent arriaval and full knowledge of Wikipedia rules see the history of Pan-Turkism.VartanM 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

please provide links to a discussion where suspected sock puppets affected the outcome. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected the code, it should have been B, an evasion of a ban by arbcom. Francis had used the wrong code.Hajji Piruz 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * .And Kwsn agrees that the check user is ok now, see and . There should be no confusion, its code B. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be ❌, though Adil has used open proxies before (doesn't look like these are proxies, though). Dmcdevit·t 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov(3rd request)


The following three users are not suspected of being AdilBaguirov's sockpuppets, but were directly or indirectly involved and could be the sockpuppeteers. Recently on June 19, 2007 there was an edit war on Church of Kish page, For which I requested page protection Four single use/throw away accounts were used to revert war and vandalize Church_of_Kish, Movses_Kagankatvatsi, Justin_McCarthy_%28American_historian%29, Gandzasar_monastery, Syunik and House_of_Hasan-Jalalyan All four users were blocked indefinitely. The vandals edits was directly or indirectly connected to users Atabek, Parishan and Ateshi-Baghavan. A similar checkuser was conducted, which included myself, Hetoum I, TheTruth4578, an anon. IP and Hakob, the results were negative. I would like to AGF and apologize to Atabek, Parishan and Ateshi-Baghavan, for including their names in the list. The only reason your names are included is because you were involved in the Church of Kish conflict. VartanM 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

. AdilBaguirov = DrAlban = Otvetniyudar = Aramgutan = Naharar. Also HachikTumanyan and AlexParKinson. Others not related.  Voice -of- All  03:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov (2nd request)





 * F:


 * The user just got blocked for edit warring, than Atabek pops up. Regarding his comment, Atabek comes right after Adil gets blocked funny how its not even him who he is talking about, Artaxiad 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

. Based on location, I don't beleive they are related. Essjay  ( Talk )  23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov




The following users may or may not be sockpuppets of AdilBaguirov, but one thing is for certain, all these accounts have been started by one person, and if necessary, please do a seperate checkuser of these usernames to see if their IP's match or are relatively the same: Atabek, Elsanaturk, Roazir, and Elnurso have all made the exact same types of personal Attacks against me. Elsanaturks attack: Atabek's attack (last sentence and header of section he started, putting my name in quotations):  Roazir's attack:  Elnurso's attack (see edit summary):. Also, notice how their talking is relatively the same and that they all really appeared out of nowhere, many times after long absences, in January to help with reverts on certain articles: AdilBaguirov's contributions (see past 500, notice how he became active again in January after a period of absence): Elnurso's contributions (see past 500, became active on December 31):  Atabek's contributions (past 500, became active on January 21):  Elsanaturk's contributions (past 500, became active on January 13):  Roazir's contributions (became active on January 15):  Tengri's contributions (became active on January 26):. Notice how Elnurso stopped editing on January 11 and Elsanaturk started editing on January 13, just two days later (also notice the "El" infront of both of their names). Furthermore, notice how AdilBaguirov has been accused of having multiple accounts before (evidence is presented here), in this case regarding Dacy69:. '''These users have appeared out of nowhere, in intervals, and have all engaged in edit wars in overlapping articles. Some make comments on talk pages supporting each other, and some help with reverts.''' Basically, here is a quick summary: a) same type of personal attacks, b) all came out of nowhere in late December or January, c) all involved in relatively the same topics, and d) all have the same tone and writing style.Azerbaijani 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: A
 * If personal attacks are occurring, they should be addressed first so that there's a basis for running a checkuser on suspected puppets of the account established as abusive. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is where I was recommended to ask for a check user: . Also, I have reported these personal attacks twice, this was the first time: and this was the second: . Please reconsider this checkuser.Azerbaijani 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The diff you provided says, "If you believe he used another account/IP to evade 3RR, you an file a Checkuser request: WP:RFCU." Where is a 3RR block being evaded? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here (read Khoikhoi's edit summary): Besides, isnt the evidence I posted above enough for a check user? Also, I have shown that I tried to deal with the attacks twice, but they still continued, so I decided to do a check uers.Azerbaijani 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the "block-evading anon" mentioned in that diff have to do with anything? All you need to do is show me just what block you think is being evaded by these editors, if that's what's going on. Since you asked: the things you list as "personal attacks" above do not rise to the level of anything actionable, in my estimation. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the evidence I posted? You cant just do a check user? By the way, Elnurso was the one that got blocked for 3rr and came back under that IP to continue his edit warring, that was the evading. Also, regarding the rest of them, they have brought up doubt that they could be the same person, does this not warrant a check user? I suspect that these are all sock puppets created to make it appear as though its more than one editor and to help with reverts and opinions. This warrants a check user does it not?Azerbaijani 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I apologize, I think I was supposed to post this in the IP check section, not the check User section, correct? My mistake, can you make the transfer or should I?Azerbaijani 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''