Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand

NisarKand (1 October 2010)


I think all three of these new Users are NisarKand's new sockpuppets. All of them have been changing the same articles that the previous socks have changed so please check these users before they cause any problem for other editors on wikipedia. Thank you--Inuit18 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please also do a checkuser on the filer,, he is likely a sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan . His every edit is identical to Anoshirawan and they both are in USA (likely California). An admin had already established that Anoshirawan was in the US. Inuit18 and Anoshirawan both decorated their pages identically  , both do small edits periodically, both edit same Afghanistan related pages with same identical POVs and both watch around for Pashtun editors only--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NisarKand (8 March 2009)

 * (may be idle)
 * (banned as a sockpuppet)
 * (evidently a sockpuppet of NisarKand)
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

I think that User:NisarKand has created new sockpuppets, namely User:Omidirani and User:Abdul Wali. Both accounts have the same field of interest, and the writing style is similar to that of NisarKand. Tajik (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

NisarKand (19 January 2009)

 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

I am asking for a checkuser file, because I have the impression that banned User:NisarKand has created new sockpuppets in order to evade his ban. The mentioned users have similar writing styles, same interests, and - as it seems - the same "ambitions" as NisarKand. Especially Afghan25 is provoking edit wars and is "propagating" factually wrong information. It is also possible that they are sockpuppets of banned User:Khampalak. Tājik (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have similar suspicions. Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

that Banigul is NisarKand and that Alishah85 is Behnam. Afghan85 is probably ❌. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Did you also check User:Khampalak? Tājik (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Khampalak is .  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The grammar used by Alishah85 is not nearly up to the quality of that used by Beh-nam. Did he/she deliberately downgrade the English used? --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NisarKand(1 December 2008)


I cannot make heads or tails of this. Someone in there is socking, and I think that both sides may be socking (see User_talk:Alison). Unfortunately, without prior experience with NisarKand's modus operendi, I am completely confused. People are throwing accusations around like water balloons, and I can't figure out who is merely editing the same way, and who is socking. I would include more users, but I can't even tell for sure who is on whose side, much less who is socking. I apologize for not being more specific. I... well, I really cannot figure out what is going on here. I hope that these people's contribs (and the thread on Alison's talk page) are enough evidence to warrant a check (or six). I am completely at a loss :S

Sorry... :/ J.delanoy gabs adds  01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * is NisarKand. and  are Beh-nam.  is ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged and bagged, thank you. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * KoonWaz's fourth edit on Wikipedia was to add a sockpuppet|Beh-nam and a LOL; also KoonWaz has some rather harsh edit summaries (such as, and ) . These indicate that this user has a history on Wikipedia. If it isn't NisarKand, then I suspect it is one of the others usually involved in these edit wars. Kingturtle (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on behavior, it's definitely someone socking, but from technical evidence, it's not NisarKand or Beh-nam as far as I know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it then be, NisarKand's trusty sidekick and comrade-in-socks? I've blocked them in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a sound conclusion. KoonWoz displays the same anti-Tajik POV pushing as Khampalak. You can ask Thatcher or Alison if they still have old CU data from their previous checks on Khampalak socks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:KoonWoz is a sock of User:Khampalak, not NisarKand. I know them both very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.17.99 (talk • contribs)
 * can a knowledgable CU deal with this assertion? I'm guessing this is an old "friend" of ours. Thanks! -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 12:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That assertion is unsupported, but has reincarnated as .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand(7 November 2008)



 * Code letter: F
 * Case filed by (Note made for transparency)  Tiptoety  talk 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Added User:KoonWoz per this edit and this one

Added User:AfgSoulja for making the same edit as KoonWoz and editing the same articles as NisarPakistani Valy and Ahmad Zahir --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ as .  and  are ❌, as far as I can tell. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged as a sock of . Tiptoety  talk 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Those two are unrelated? You mean that they are different persons? Just how many different afghan/pashton POV pushers does this place have? T.T --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are different persons. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks --Enric Naval (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand(5 November 2008)



 * Code letter: F

I found Spock44, who reverted the Sher_Shah_Suri article back to the version written by User:NisarKand. See a diff comparing the versions where the only change is linking "Afghan" to Pashtun people.
 * Supporting evidence:

They have both edited Saffarid dynasty and Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari (this last one edited by NirkaSand with sock User:ZmaGhurnStaKona). They have both added the same link to an article

He was registered on 29 July 2008, and, according to this page, the last sockpuppet by NisarKand was blocked on 15 July 2008 (hum, actually, that was a sock of Benham... :-/ ). He is also adding afghan people to Category:Pashtun people ], on an article that doesn't mention "pashtun" anywhere.

An editor experienced with NisarKand confirmed that I should file a checkuser here --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:


 * 1) . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand(14 July 2008)

 * ,, , , , , . Or it could be Beh-nam. Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , . Or it could be Beh-nam. Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , . Or it could be Beh-nam. Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Code letter: F


 * ❌ - it's Beh-nam again. See the other RFCU submission - A l is o n  ❤ 08:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 7 June 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * This account was created recently after the last sock of NisarKand was banned.
 * He expresses Pashtun and Afghan nationalism (see his contributions).
 * He is familiar with the long unjustly banned user: Tajik, he accuses another user of being him (Diff). So this user is obviously not new. NisarKand was the only other of the few Afghanistani editors who knew Tajik.
 * He is familiar with the long unjustly banned user: Tajik, he accuses another user of being him (Diff). So this user is obviously not new. NisarKand was the only other of the few Afghanistani editors who knew Tajik.


 * - the editor who filed this checkuser case is, of course, the banned editor yet again. Blocked now -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - as sockpuppets of, the following accounts:






 * NisarKand has been using a number of IPs to avoid detection. This IP range is little else other than NisarKand and I'm seriously considering a rangeblock /16 AO/ACB - A l is o n  ❤ 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be possible that everyone who use that IP may not be NisarKand but somebody other than him involved in reverting Beh-nam's vandalism. IPs which are used to revert obvious vandalism should not be range blocked, unless they are used for vandalizing pages. I don't see any vandalism by NisarKand or aby the IPS from his location so he is helping Wikipedia. I use the same IP as NisarKand's because we all live in the same city and we are all Afghans who are reverting vandalism on Afghanistan articles. You should at least find a good reason to block our IPs, and one thing we don't do is insult other editors or vandalize pages because that's clearly against the Wiki rules. Banned User:Beh-nam and banned User:Tajik are NON-AFGHANS using IPs from the west to insult Afghan editors and they are bashing Pashtun people, removing any source that they don't agree with. They want to attack pages that are related to Pashtun people and we are just helping revert their vandalism. You know this and that should be considered. This attacking Afghan articles is a major problem and something needs to be done to stop User:Beh-nam from Canada and User:Tajik from Germany or else we Afghans gonna sue Wikipedia. Then none of you will be able to use this site. Thanks.
 * Less of the threats please, NisarKand. Nobody is particularly interested in your wiki-battle, neither yours, nor Beh-nam's not Tajik's. It's all disruption and extra work. I'm seriously considering doing the same to Beh-nam's IP range - A l is o n  ❤ 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * blocked. Tiptoety  talk 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison, if you can find a way to make a rangeblock work, I will fully support it. Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DurraniPashtoon is latest sock of beh-nam please block it. Now, If you find any IP similar as mines that is doing disruptive activities then do range block on it and I give you support. But, if it is just reverting obvious vandalism done by possible sockpuppets of banned user:Beh-nam, banned user:Tajik or banned User:Anoshirawan or their established IPs then you should just ignore and continue with your work. My recommendation is fair and just, it should not be treated as taking sides. By now you all should realize that the 2 anti-Afghan banned editors (beh-nam and tajik) are here just so they can express their hate towards Afghanistan, Afghans, Pashtun people and all those others that they don't like. By the way, Anoshirawan was a US proxy for Tajik. These haters are not contributors like other editors, they don't follow any rules so they should be banned without being able to edit a single page. Trust me I know these haters from other Afghan online sites and they are there 24-7 also insulting Pashtuns and spreading propagandas. I fully understand that you administrators work hard here and these edit-warriors (beh-nam and tajik) should be stopped from their disruption activities once and for all. NisarKand was never a problem, nobody else (other than beh-nam and tajik) had any problems with him. On the other hand, ben-nam and tajik are involved in edit-wars with many editors even with you adminsitrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by very obvious IP sock of NisarKand (talk • contribs)


 * Beh-nam now blocked again. The thing is, both of you, plus Tajik are basically wasting everyone's time here with your ridiculous sock-puppetry and your tit-for-tat checkuser requests against each other. Just look at the length of this page!! You're both wasting the checkusers' time, User:Kingturtle's time and each other's time in this inane Wiki-war that has been going on for - what - a year now?? In terms of prevention of disruptions, I'll have no problems blocking both your IP ranges as a lack of Beh-nam, NisarKand and Tajik would be a net gain for the encyclopedia at this stage. Which is actually a pity overall, as you're all pretty-much experts in your chosen field. You (all) just can't get on and, instead, endlessly edit-war. It's all very pointless and all very sad, really - A l is o n  ❤ 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKind 30 May 2008
- Blueboy96 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - It's for starters, and the editor hasn't edited in over a year. Sure you got this right?? -  A l is o n  ❤ 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I meant . Happens when you file a checkuser right after getting up from a nap ... Blueboy96 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So let's do this formally ... again ... Blueboy96 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh - thought as much :)


 * And ✅ as socks of




 * - a few of the busy ones - A l is o n  ❤ 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and accounts blocked too. Tiptoety  talk 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 9 May 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * This account was created recently.
 * Just like NisarKand, this user removes sourced content that describe Afghanistan as being a regional block in the Middle East (Diff)
 * Just like NisarKand, this user removes sourced content that describes Afghanistan being formed as a state in the mid 1800s (same Diff)
 * He is familiar with the long unjustly banned user: Beh-nam, he mentions him in his edit summary (Diff). So this user is obviously not new. NisarKand was the only other of the few Afghanistani editors who knew Beh-nam.
 * He is familiar with the long unjustly banned user: Beh-nam, he mentions him in his edit summary (Diff). So this user is obviously not new. NisarKand was the only other of the few Afghanistani editors who knew Beh-nam.


 * - the anon who filed this is an obvious Beh-nam sock. Blocked now - A l is o n  ❤ 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts as socks of User:NisarKand:



- A l is o n  ❤ 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)




 * Same protocol; accusing users he disagrees with to be Benham. Making disruptive edits to the Silvia Lancome article and talk page, even convincing an admin to speedy delete an image that was uploaded by a user he falsely accused to be Benham. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * KyleSmithX and DuvarnGreen are in fact the banned editor User:Beh-nam. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam You should first see if he is telling the truth or not, before you say he falsely accused a user (DuvarnGreen) to be Behnam.


 * Was checked by the user Litrboxr. I'm skeptical about Duvarngreen and KyleSmithX being Beh-nam. Duvarn is a photographer I've run into in person (although that may not be his account). Vinh1313 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Litrboxr is the same as Bistiks. Thatcher 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 12 April 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * NisarKand had a habit of having feuds with anyone he suspected to be Beh-nam. 202.134.132.60 has accused a user of being Beh-nam and reverted the user's edits in the Silvia Lancome article before there is a confirmation. As user McTools, Nisarkand was hostile to the idea that Silvia Lancome was of partial Afghan heritage. 202.134.132.60 reinstated McTools edits on that aspect with the revert of the user that he suspected as Beh-nam.
 * Then for good measure 202.134.132.60 accuses the same person to be Tajik. 202.134.132.60 doesn't seem to like Tajik either as he labels Anoshirawan to be Tajik. Nisarkand, as user McTools, suspected user: Anoshirawan to be Tajik.
 * Then for good measure 202.134.132.60 accuses the same person to be Tajik. 202.134.132.60 doesn't seem to like Tajik either as he labels Anoshirawan to be Tajik. Nisarkand, as user McTools, suspected user: Anoshirawan to be Tajik.

I am requesting this checkuser because the same pattern seems to be happening again. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * , certainly consistent with past IP addresses. Thatcher 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 28 March 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * The users name is Pashto for "StrengthAndHonor". NisarKand was also a Pashto-speaking Pashtun.
 * NisarKand tried to delete the Pashtun Mafia article before, and NagnOnamos continued those efforts and has successfully deleted that article.
 * NisarKand removed all references to that article before on other articles, on the Pashtun people article for example. NangOnamos is doing the same thing, see here.
 * All of NangOnamos's edits have been removing Pashtun Mafia from articles, clearly he is a Pashtun-nationalist, just like NisarKand. Also just like NisarKand, NangOnamos accuses others of being racist against Pashtuns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.54.169 (talk • contribs)
 * All of NangOnamos's edits have been removing Pashtun Mafia from articles, clearly he is a Pashtun-nationalist, just like NisarKand. Also just like NisarKand, NangOnamos accuses others of being racist against Pashtuns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.54.169 (talk • contribs)


 * ❌. Thatcher 04:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 18 March 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: McTools began editing 8 March 2008, about a month after NisarKand's most recent confirmed sock was blocked. McTools started off with editing Afghanistan related articles, particularly Pashtun related articles such as Khost, Khost Province, Paktia Province, etc. In particular he removed the categories of Category:Wars involving the Taliban, Category:Taliban, and . His previous confirmed sockpuppets have done the same on other articles. He also edited airbasess in Afghanistan just as NisarKand used to do (such as his edit on the Bagram Air Base). Only one day into editing, he also was already familiar with checkuser and the long banned editor user: Behnam as he made an edit to his checkuser case (here). Also his edits overall where too advanced for a brand new user. The admin user: Kingturtle realized that these edits can't be coincedence and taged him as a suspected sock a few days later (see here). McTools then stopped editing Pashtun and Afghanistan related articles (obviously to try to fool Kingturtle). Also he continued to edit war with users he suspected as being Beh-nam on the Silvia Lancome article, NisarKand had a habit of having feuds with anyone he suspected to be Beh-nam. Also on that particular article, he attempted to remove her alias name "Miss Afghanistan" (see here) because as an Afghan-nationalist he does not like a pornstar being associated with Afghanistan. Just like NisarKand, McTools displays this Afghan pride/nationalism. Also recently I noticed he attempted to get user: Anoshirawan blocked(see here). How would this new user know anything about Anoshirawan? NisarKand has desperately tried this in the past to get Anoshirawan blocked.
 * Supporting evidence: McTools began editing 8 March 2008, about a month after NisarKand's most recent confirmed sock was blocked. McTools started off with editing Afghanistan related articles, particularly Pashtun related articles such as Khost, Khost Province, Paktia Province, etc. In particular he removed the categories of Category:Wars involving the Taliban, Category:Taliban, and . His previous confirmed sockpuppets have done the same on other articles. He also edited airbasess in Afghanistan just as NisarKand used to do (such as his edit on the Bagram Air Base). Only one day into editing, he also was already familiar with checkuser and the long banned editor user: Behnam as he made an edit to his checkuser case (here). Also his edits overall where too advanced for a brand new user. The admin user: Kingturtle realized that these edits can't be coincedence and taged him as a suspected sock a few days later (see here). McTools then stopped editing Pashtun and Afghanistan related articles (obviously to try to fool Kingturtle). Also he continued to edit war with users he suspected as being Beh-nam on the Silvia Lancome article, NisarKand had a habit of having feuds with anyone he suspected to be Beh-nam. Also on that particular article, he attempted to remove her alias name "Miss Afghanistan" (see here) because as an Afghan-nationalist he does not like a pornstar being associated with Afghanistan. Just like NisarKand, McTools displays this Afghan pride/nationalism. Also recently I noticed he attempted to get user: Anoshirawan blocked(see here). How would this new user know anything about Anoshirawan? NisarKand has desperately tried this in the past to get Anoshirawan blocked.

In conclusion, all these edits cannot be a coincidence. From all the above, it is clear that this is NisarKand again, but this time trying to be more clever by editing some other articles and decorating his user page.

Defense: Dear all, my first edit was not afganistan related. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bin_Laden_family&diff=prev&oldid=196663717 Prior to creating this name I was editing under 172.159.xxx.xxx ips and got really sick of others reverting my edits. I reported anoshirawan after seeing him in the check user at the bottom, and you (Beh-nam) are the indef blocked 'vandal' with multiple sock puppets who shouldn't be even be editing. As you all can see that I filed a check user on my self at the bottom or see here.--mCtOOls 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the procedure to follow if an account is Likely? Kingturtle (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what makes you think or say likely? I think we need to see another administrator's thought on this--mCtOOls 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that you've been engaging in sock puppetry. There, you have an independent view. Jehochman Talk 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your nice thoughts, did anyone tell you that you look just like Mr. Bean?--mCtOOls 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand 16 March 2008

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: From what I've been able to glean from Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan, User:Rudaki was suspected as being a sock puppet of User:Anoshirawan. However, User:Rudaki's account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. That suggests that User:Anoshirawan is a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. Can we check into this? Kingturtle (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: From what I've been able to glean from Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan, User:Rudaki was suspected as being a sock puppet of User:Anoshirawan. However, User:Rudaki's account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. That suggests that User:Anoshirawan is a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. Can we check into this? Kingturtle (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: From what I've been able to glean from Suspected sock puppets/Anoshirawan, User:Rudaki was suspected as being a sock puppet of User:Anoshirawan. However, User:Rudaki's account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. That suggests that User:Anoshirawan is a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. Can we check into this? Kingturtle (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingturle also tagged me as being possible sock puppet of user:nisarkand http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMcTools&diff=198030701&oldid=197978288 so lets clear his doubt

I'll give you my IP address and it's 172.159.145.237 if it may help --McTools (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note NisarKand has previously had a few different IPs. He has edited from east-cast United States and Islamabad, Pakistan.


 * McTools is ; Anoshirawan is ❌. (McTools is also lying about his IP.) Thatcher 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain what makes you think or say likely? I purposly lied about my ip to see what the indef blocked 'vandal' Beh-namwould say. Revealing ip number is optional and should not be mentioned here. I think we need to see another administrator's thought on this one because Thatcher seems to care for Beh-nam (who has close to 100 sockpuppets) by refusing to apply range block on his ips. I further noticed that thatcher didn't even bother to explain about Beh-nam filing this latest checkuser on the top. I smell something fishy, probably a conspiracy against me already.--mCtOOls 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkusers can see your real IP address via the information in the database, so releasing your (fake) IP address was pointless here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question, and I already know that my ip may be seen by whoever do the check. That's probably the main way of checking editors. Whenever someone creates a name, it also shows which ip was used. Again, the reason I showed a fake ip number was to misguide the indef blocked vandal (User:Beh-nam ) who filed the checkuser using his toronto, canada, ip number. See details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. I have the rights to hide my self from cyberstalkers. So, I want Thatcher to explain why she wrote Likely? was it because she trusted Beh-nam's statement or because my ip is the same as NisarKand's, I just wanna get to the bottom of this. People make mistakes and I want to see if there was any mistakes made here.--mCtOOls 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely because you are in the same city but on a different ISP, with other shared characteristics. Thatcher 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! so whoever lives in same city, even being on different ISP, are likely one person to you? Do you have any idea how many people live in this city? Like I said it's a conspiracy.--mCtOOls 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came across this Requests for checkuser/Case/Khampalak and there administrator Nishkid64 states that khampalak is confirmed by CheckUser to be a sock of nisarkand. Nisarkand/khampalak used the last sock puppet EduardoGuerez on March 22, 2008. Can administrator thatcher kindly explain to us if eduardoguerez is also in my city? This should not be a problem for her. I then want thatcher to explain if it's possible for 2, 3 or even more people to be editing wikipedia from the same city? When 2 people or more are editing from the same city, being on different ISP, are they sock puppets? I wish nisarkand/khampalak would come and explain here if I am them or I am somebody other than them, we will know then if administrator thatcher erred or not. We need to solve this problem because I am being called sock puppet when I just made this name on March 8, 2008.--mCtOOls 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Nishkid64 misread the section of this case below where it says "Confirmed with respect to the named user(s), No comment with respect to IP address(es). as a sock of Khampalak (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Khampalak for previous history - Alison ❤ 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)"  RomainSnd is a sock of Khampalak, and there is no relationship between Khampalak and NisarKand. Thatcher 15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: The user's very first two edits were and . This user is in opposition to Beh-nam (and  this edit). This editor involved in an ongoing edit war.  Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: The user's very first two edits were and . This user is in opposition to Beh-nam (and  this edit). This editor involved in an ongoing edit war.  Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, as well as . Dmcdevit·t 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * (also added)
 * (also added)
 * I have blocked Pheng Lee for 48 hours due to edit warring. Can someone confirm whether or not this is a sock puppet? Pheng Lee's edits over the past few days should confirm it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (also added)
 * (also added)
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: First user confirms here to be a(nother) sockpuppet of NisarKand. The account is active since July 12th, 2007 and has been used to evade the block. The second account was created 1 day earliert, on July 11th, 2007. By using these (older) accounts, NisarKand is able to edit pages which are semi-protected.
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: First user confirms here to be a(nother) sockpuppet of NisarKand. The account is active since July 12th, 2007 and has been used to evade the block. The second account was created 1 day earliert, on July 11th, 2007. By using these (older) accounts, NisarKand is able to edit pages which are semi-protected.


 * ✅ as NisarKand: Thorjaan, Ghulam Farook, Pheng Lee, Pollinghigh,
 * ❌ Shikab
 * K. Hosseini
 * ✅ as Tajik: Al-Fanā and the various 82.83.0.0/16 IPs editing here. Dmcdevit·t 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1) On the Kandahar article, a look at the history of that article shows that he is repeating the same edits as User:ZmaGhurnStaKona, a confirmed sock of NisarKand that was blocked a few days ago.
 * 2) Samething on the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, see article's history.
 * 1) Samething on the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, see article's history.


 * ✅ - also,


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am NisarKand and I was unlawfully banned. An admin blocked me for a week and after serving my week long block another admin decided to indef block me for I have no idea why If you see Special:Contributions/NisarKand you will notice that I was indef blocked without understanding why and while not doing anything wrong but just doing good edits on articles that should recieve "featured article" statuses with stars. I did mostly all the work on Kandahar, Kabul, Afghan National Army, Military of Afghanistan, Afghan Air Force, and many many others. I was not provided an opportunity to ask for a proper unblock. I was treated very very very very veyr veyr very unfairly and I am not doing anything here but just contributing faithful edits. All other banned editors were given not one but many many many opportunities and chances but they failed because they are vandals instead of editors, I DID NOT GET ONE!!! MY CASE SHOULD BE RE-TRIED SO THAT I CAN DEFEND MY SELF PROPERLY AND IF I'M FOUND GUILTY THEN YOU WON'T SEE ME HERE AGAIN. BUT IF I"M INNOCENT THEN I SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK. MY SOCK PUPPETS BEGAN "AFTER" I WAS ILLEGALLY BANNED. CAN SOME ADMIN HELP ME THROUGH THIS PLEASE? I LOVE WRITING, I AM TRYING TO WRITE A BOOK ON MY SPARE TIME.--Ghulam Farook (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nisarkand, both you and Beh-nam have been phenomenally disruptive on here and have wasted everyone's time with your antics. I've no doubt that you could be a good editor if you'd only stop the nonsense here. As checkuser, I'm getting tired of flushing out socks of both of you. It's just so childish. Then, of course, there's the matter of trolling on my talk page last month. Remember? - A l is o n  ❤ 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to troll but just ask you a short question to get some info if by coincident I know you. I'm not stupid to reveal someone's personal information here to the public. I have this habit of meeting people online that I once knew or met. I am not creating new names for distruptive purposes but to some how hide from the banned and trouble making editors (User:Beh-nam, User:Tajik and User:Anoshirawan). Every edit I do they think I'm upto something, spreading Pashtun nationalism. All I do is organize pages and I try to avoid disputes but some how these troubled users pull me, by me trying to fix what they delete. The first edit I did was on Afghanistan back in October 2006 and on the same day Tajik began reverting my edits and began this long dispute with me that Afghanistan did not exist in 1747, which according to every encyclopedia or books say it existed. Tajik invited Beh-nam later and both began saying this but recently they've been saying at other talk pages that Afghanistan began as a nation in 1747. This is Tajik's IP and This is Beh-nam's sock agreeing Beh-nam has been watching my every move everyday since he first lost the debate. Sockpuppets are allowed according to the rules of Wikipedia as long as they are not used for vandalism or during edit-wars when a user tries to avoid 3rr's. I do not do none of those acts because it's not right plus it will always be used against me at a later time. I just need a permission to come back and I will behave like a full adult and not try to violate a single rule again. I am in my 30s and I can't act childish anymore even if I wanted to. I am assuming that Beh-nam is in his teens, still going to school or college but not sure. The list of my blocks were for very minor things, one was simply for me making a joking wish to get blocked and an admin granted my wish by blocking and then re-blocking. Another ban was for me adding "semi-protection tag" by mistake, I thought any editor is allowed to do that. Anyway, I wish this time to be allowed back and I promise to behave like you admins. By coincident I was banned on Feb 2, 2007 and it's now Feb 16, 2008, which means I served a full year block. All my blocked names can be re-directed to my main name and that will give me credit to all the edits I've done with all the diff names. And one last thing, the Khampalak person is not me. Many names added as my socks belong to somebody else I am 100% sure about this. That person's IP starts with 90 while mines starts with 203.--Ghulam Farook (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NisarKand, your disruptive editing had begun much earlier. And your extremely racist edits and sockpuppet nick-names which have the sole purpose to insult certain ethnic groups within Afghanistan prove this. Edits like this one or this one. Your current disruptive editing in Demography of Afghanistan in which you once again ignored the discussion and pushed for POV is again a proof for your disruptive behavior. In fact, User:Tajik whom you insult in your postings, was banned because of your sockpuppet. User:Tajik-Professor, the account that was used to get Tajik banned, was not a sockpuppet of Tajik, but a sockpuppet of you, NisarKand. The edits-summary also confirms this. Last week, 10 months after User:Tajik-Professor got banned (and again unbanned, after Checkuser confirmed that he is not a sockpuppet of Tajik: ), you wrote this on the user's page, very obviously trying to defend NisarKand and to divert the toppic. Tajik-Professor's writing style is almost identical to yours:
 * Unlike you, User:Tajik was banned because of a false accusation (i.e. that he used the sockpuppet "Tajik-Professor) and he was banned without any checkuser file. A few weeks later, a new user showed up, User:German-Orientalist. Although there is no checkuser proof, he was also banned, and this account was used to ban Tajik permanently. Until today, there have been no proofs and many users, including User:Alex Bakharev have even asked User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, to unban Tajik: . Unfortunately, no one payed attention to this case. So what are you complaining about, after having abused some 40 sockpuppets with racist and insulting nicknames?!

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1) This new user is either another sockpuppet of NisarKand or he is proxying for him. They have identical edits, interests, writing style. In Demography of Afghanistan, both users have removed a reference to Encyclopaedia Britannica and then forced a protection of the page in the factually wrong version. RomainSnd insulted me by writing this. "Ghool-e khar" means "stupid/idiot donkey" in Persian.
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1) This new user is either another sockpuppet of NisarKand or he is proxying for him. They have identical edits, interests, writing style. In Demography of Afghanistan, both users have removed a reference to Encyclopaedia Britannica and then forced a protection of the page in the factually wrong version. RomainSnd insulted me by writing this. "Ghool-e khar" means "stupid/idiot donkey" in Persian.


 * And you have left obscene messages on several user's pages.. stating that you've copulated with their mothers and sisters. Example: .  Some people have no class.  I can smell your desperation from here.  --RomainSnd (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ as a sock of . See Requests for checkuser/Case/Khampalak for previous history - A l is o n  ❤ 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * added 30 Jan 2008
 * originally tagged 9 October 2007
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1) Like NisarKand's previous confirmed and blocked sockpuppets (eg. User:Inferior-Tajik, User:Tajik Is A Rat, User:Tajik the Wounded and Sick Rat, etc), this user shows racism toward the ethnic group Tajiks. His username Inferior-Parsibaan again referes to Tajiks as Parsibaan is another term for Tajiks. It is the same name as Inferior-Tajik. He also called Tajiks donkeys similar to how his previous socks called Tajiks rats (see here, note that "khar" in Persian means "donkey'). Also, although this user made his account today he is familiar with the injustly banned user user: Tajik. The evidence is very clear that this is NisarKand again.
 * 1) Like NisarKand's previous confirmed and blocked sockpuppets (eg. User:Inferior-Tajik, User:Tajik Is A Rat, User:Tajik the Wounded and Sick Rat, etc), this user shows racism toward the ethnic group Tajiks. His username Inferior-Parsibaan again referes to Tajiks as Parsibaan is another term for Tajiks. It is the same name as Inferior-Tajik. He also called Tajiks donkeys similar to how his previous socks called Tajiks rats (see here, note that "khar" in Persian means "donkey'). Also, although this user made his account today he is familiar with the injustly banned user user: Tajik. The evidence is very clear that this is NisarKand again.


 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * - Inferior-Parsibaan tagged. -- AMR D euce (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely - and  - both were found edit warring on Demography of Afghanistan -- AMR D euce  (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment stricken by me to avoid confusion; comments and tags added by non-checkusers are meaningless unless confirmed by a checkuser. Thatcher 15:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * - Inferior-Parsibaan is now tagged and blocked. I've no comment regarding the two other editors that User:AMRDeuce has placed here. I'm guessing these are to be added to the checkuser but no rationale has been supplied -  A l is o n  ❤ 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -, - thanks Kingturtle! -  A l is o n  ❤ 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - blocked and tagged - A l is o n  ❤ 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: This user's edits are very similar to NisarKand's and his other sockpuppets. Just like NisarKand, this user seems to be a Pashtun-nationalist and removes sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica because he claims it is anti-Pashtun or anti-Afghan. Also, the user is somehow aware of user: Beh-nam and user: Tajik (see here). The only editor who was also from Afghanistan and aquintated with Beh-nam and Tajik was NisarKand. That alone should be enough for a checkuser to be a good idea. ((unsigned|67.68.54.133}}
 * Supporting evidence: This user's edits are very similar to NisarKand's and his other sockpuppets. Just like NisarKand, this user seems to be a Pashtun-nationalist and removes sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica because he claims it is anti-Pashtun or anti-Afghan. Also, the user is somehow aware of user: Beh-nam and user: Tajik (see here). The only editor who was also from Afghanistan and aquintated with Beh-nam and Tajik was NisarKand. That alone should be enough for a checkuser to be a good idea. ((unsigned|67.68.54.133}}


 * - the editor who filed this case is, of course, the banned editor User:Beh-nam - blocked now - A l is o n  ❤ 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - also




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pheng Lee's contribs are... interesting. But could someone more familiar with the case have a look (also to the editors he tagged as being Beh-nam socks. -- lucasbfr  talk 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1) Like NisarKand's confirmed and blocked previous sockpuppets (eg. User:Inferior-Tajik, User:Tajik Is A Rat, User:Tajik the Wounded and Sick Rat, etc), this user shows racism toward the ethnic group Tajiks. For example on this edit he again shows his Pashtun-supremacism and racism against other ethnic groups of Afghanistan: "the man that killed him was also Tajik, I read the story, and Tajiks are considered middle class in Kabul, Hazaras as poor and Pashtuns as elite wealthy and rich. And also on this edit he shows his racism toward Tajiks.
 * 2) Looking at the Revision history of Afghan American, several of NisarKand's confirmed sockpuppets were making the same edits as this new user: Kamrajoy (eg. User:Atari400, User:Inferior-Tajik, User:Afghanvisa, etc).
 * 1) Looking at the Revision history of Afghan American, several of NisarKand's confirmed sockpuppets were making the same edits as this new user: Kamrajoy (eg. User:Atari400, User:Inferior-Tajik, User:Afghanvisa, etc).

From the above evidence, this new user: Kamrajoy has shown the same racist views as user: NisarKand and is editing the same article in the same manner as NisarKand's other socks. Also, this user appeared shortly after his previous sock was banned. All this cannot be a coincidence.


 * - anon editor filing this report is User:Beh-nam again. Blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - also -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged. -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand

 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: same edits and vandalism as usual done by his other sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs) 07:38, December 27, 2007
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: same edits and vandalism as usual done by his other sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs) 07:38, December 27, 2007

For some reason, this case would not transclude to the RFCU page. I have left it here and posted a request to a checkuser for review. The newly alleged sock is already indef blocked. - JodyBtalk 12:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, you posted your request in the middle of the archive template ;) -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

khampalak





 * Code letter: A
 * Supporting evidence: using sockpuppets to vandalize articles.

This user Khampalak was banned a few months ago for vandalizing articles and and cursing admins and other users. Now he is coming on wikipedia with numerous sockpuppets and is vandalizing articles. His other Sockpuppets which were banned were   .. Anoshirawan 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an SSP case related to this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - both of these are already blocked and Afghansuperior = Nisarkand again - A l is o n  ❤ 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Afghansuperior was not blocked, so I just did it and have tagged both as Nisarkand socks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F

user: Afghansuperior}] appeared right after the previous sock of his was banned. The evidence is strong due to him editing the [[Afghan-Americans article in the exact same manner as before (please see his contribs or the article's history).
 * - before any checkusers even decide to review this, I've checked the editor who submitted this again. As last time, it's User:beh-nam again, so I've blocked his IP, as well as User:Quebecer, which is his latest incarnation - A l is o n  ❤ 08:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally find it difficult to keep humouring him and carrying out the checks he requests. I did see this request, but I felt no need to act on it given the person requesting it is banned. --Deskana (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an SSP case related to this. They have also trolled my talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ - also -  A l is o n  ❤ 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC) blocked him too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F

This new user: ZXR222 appeared today, right after his previous confirmed and blocked sock user: ZRX222 (see below). I think just the similiarity in the name and his edit on the Afghan-American article (see contribs) is enough evidence to warrant a checkuser.
 * . This is obvious. --Deskana (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked -JodyBtalk 18:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F

user: Ziblam appeared and began editing right after his previous sock (user: ZRX222) was banned. Ziblam has continued the same edits as ZRX222. For example. here ZRX222 adds the images to the article. Then a few days later Ziblam insists on having the images there and just like NisarKand he accuses others of hating Pashtuns; see here. Another example, ZRX222 insists that Afghanistani is incorrect and moves the page to Afghan see here, after ZRX222 is banned, Ziblam does the same on the talk page see here. I think the evidence is pretty clear and a checkuser would be a good idea.


 * ✅ - also
 * ✅ - the editor filing this report is the banned editor, - also socking as  and . Reporting here per policy due to their disruptive editing. Two for the price of one, sorry -  A l is o n  ❤ 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ziblam and Optionz have been blocked as CU-confirmed sockpuppets of NisarKand. Kabul-Shahan2020 was previously blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Beh-nam, and I have now blocked CanadianAnthropologist as a confirmed CU sockpuppet of Beh-nam. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand


This user appeared right after the previously banned sock of NisarKand was banned. He is editing the article List of Pashtuns as before and strongly opposing the term Afghanistani as he did with his previous socks. I doubt that is a coincidence and a check user might be a good idea in this case.
 * Code letter: F
 * The person who just filed this report is banned user:Beh-nam again under his new sock acount User:Kabul-Shahan2020. --ZRX222 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * . --Deskana (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked -- lucasbfr talk 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * This user has began editing in July, back when some other socks of NisarKand where banned. He stopped editing on July 11. Came back, and moved the Tajiks article to Tajooks and Tajuks. NisarKand has mocked the word Tajik before, see his other sockpuppet usernames before such as User:Tajik Is A Rat, User:Taikai, User:Tajik the Wounded and Sick Rat. He then reappeared today. Once again this user is editing Pashtun related articles just like NisarKand and all of his socks. But the main thing that gives it away is him mocking the Tajik ethnic group by moving the article to Tajooks (see here).
 * The user who filed this report is the banned User:Beh-nam using IP to evade indef block, making racial jokes involving death , vandalise pages and more... just check his few recent edits, espcially the one he left on my talk page. By the way, he was socking under User:KabulHospital and User:HariRud, which are now indef blocked by admins. He is very easy to spot because of his Toronto, Canada, area IP range that are usually similar to 65.94.218.184 ,  and his same behaviour on Wikipedia, pushing his Persian POVs and adding ((talkheader)) to talk pages of articles relating to Afghanistan and the nearby regions.--Travler (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * - frankly, it looks like everyone is socking over there, the editor who filed this report included. I notice that they are now blocked, too. However, I'm taking the case on its merits and per the evidence supplied here.


 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet of NisarKand; tag added to userpage, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These situations are very complicated. We need to watch who is filing requests very carefully. In this case an IP filed the request. This suggests experience with Wikipedia, and I believe there are banned users on both sides of these disputes. --Deskana (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand


CU unneeded, blocked him. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * He has confessed here.
 * - I just blocked the guy - A l is o n  ❤ 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand



 * Code letter: F
 * This user appeared on September 12, 2007, after a few other NisarKand socks were banned. He was editing articles mostly about airbases in Afghanistan and NisarKand was also very into the same topics. Also, he has the same view as NisarKand that Afghan is the only correct denonym. For example, his other recently confirmed sockpuppet user: Hurooz removes any mention of denonyms other than Afghan as seen here, and this user: LarrySpin has the same view as seen here. I don't think this pattern of editing is coincidental and a checkuser might be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.16.84 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - also -  A l is o n  ❤ 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked and tagged. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand


These two users started editing again right after NisarKand's other socks were banned a few days ago:
 * Code letter: F
 * user: Wmmr user appeared on October 5, 2007. He has a short list of edits but they are the same edits NisarKand and his other sockpuppets made. For example this edit by NisarKand's confirmed recent sockpuppet, user: Hurooz, is identical to this edit by user: Wmmr. I don't think that is a coincidence and a checkuser might be appropriate.
 * user: NestleOJ also appeared recently and has a short edit history almost all of them on the Hamid Karzai article, an article the NisarKand and his socks alos edited frequently. In particular, this by user: NestleOJ is very similar to this edit by his recently confirmed and banned sock user: Hurooz, in both edits they change the heading from Involvement in the Soviet war in Afghanistan to Member of the Mujahideen. Again I think the similarity is not a coincidence and a checkuser would be wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.145.19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - and  -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - and  -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked and tagged. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand
added: added:
 * 1) (possibly)
 * 1) (possibly)
 * 1) (possibly)
 * 1) (possibly)
 * 1) (possibly)


 * Code letter: F
 * This user appeared recently. He has very few edits, the same types of edits on the same articles NisarKand used to edit (eg. *(1) he is against the denonym Afghani even though its referenced and removes it, just like NisarKand, *(2) he is against sources that say that Ahmad Shah Abdali was born in Multan just like NisarKand, *(3) he places images of Ahmad Shah Durrani from Commons onto the article, just like NisarKand, *(4) he insists on having the same images on the Pashtun people article and claims that I removed them because I hate them, that is exactly what NisarKand did and then claimed. But what's really amazing is that he is very familiar with me and all my past block logs and is trying to manipulate admins into blocking or banning me and I barely have seen him edit and have had no disputes with him yet he was asking admins to block me, he is a brand new user (see his contributions). What's even more strange is that he knows about user: Tajik who was banned months ago and who NisarKand had issues with. How can he know user: Tajik if this user: Hurooz really is a new user? -- Behnam (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * . There are no checkuser logs stored for NisarKand. --Deskana (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what that means? Will this help: some of NisarKand's IP addresses . Note that they all start with "202.134.132".-- Behnam (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you get an administrator to confirm these IPs were used by NisarKand? --Deskana (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Or can I just give you the diff by that admin (user: Khoikhoi) where he says that that is NisarKand's IP, [here the Admin Khoikhoi tells me his IP address on my talk page]. If that is not ok then I will ask him. -- Behnam (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archiving templates were screwed; now fixed. Anthøny  19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added another (possible?) candidate, for similar reasons. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And a few others that are hopefully recent enough to serve as a basis for a check on Hurooz. Awsume4444 was essentially a self-declared sock, Khan, Ghaffar and Dilbar Jan can be treated as confirmed on behaviour grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)




 * Two distinct groups here, both socking - A l is o n  ❤ 11:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great thank you very much for looking into it. About the two groups, I know for sure that and  are two different users. Also I know for sure that  is  because he has already been banned because of that. Thus, the first group is  and  is indeed . -- Behnam (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, can we get User:Panjshiri-Tajik checked as well. --Haemo (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. Looking at his edits there is a good chance that's him also. He has used sockpuppets before with Tajik in his username see here. -- Behnam (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you also please check user: DreamOfJeannie. This user appeared just today and is editing Afghanistan articles and claiming Dari and Persian are two different languages, just like NisarKand. Also, he accused me of being user: Tajik (see here), once again how would this user who is new today know about user: Tajik who was banned months ago? -- Behnam (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if we could please check user: Naseer n nasrat. He appeared recently and only has 6 edits, all of them removing the term Afghani, NisarKand was also against this term (as explained above). -- Behnam (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ❌ - both of them
 * - I think we're done on this case now. Can we close, please? I'd rather a fresh case was opened next time. Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand

 * Code letter: F
 * Dilbar appearers to be a reincarnation of the banned user NisarKand, editing the exact same pages (please see contributions of both users) with the same POV's and also the same racist remarks like this. -- Behnam 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please specifically state which pages the two have edited, and provide diffs showing their similar behaviour. --Deskana (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind. Sorry about this, but the user:Dilbar Jan has already been banned. Thanks for your help though. But I do have a more recent case that I will post in a sec. -- Behnam (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * for this one then. --Deskana (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind. Sorry about this, but the user:Dilbar Jan has already been banned. Thanks for your help though. But I do have a more recent case that I will post in a sec. -- Behnam (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * for this one then. --Deskana (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand

 * Code letter: F
 * Dilbar appearers to be a reincarnation of the banned user NisarKand, editing the exact same pages (please see contributions of both users) with the same POV's and also the same racist remarks like this. -- Behnam 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Dilbar appearers to be a reincarnation of the banned user NisarKand, editing the exact same pages (please see contributions of both users) with the same POV's and also the same racist remarks like this. -- Behnam 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand

 * Code letter: F
 * RavinBill appearers to be a reincarnation of the banned user NisarKand, editing the exact same pages with the same POV. --Mardavich 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * RavinBill appearers to be a reincarnation of the banned user NisarKand, editing the exact same pages with the same POV. --Mardavich 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

✅. Dmcdevit·t 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there are more:

The IP is editing the exact same pages as NisarKand/RavinBill with the same POV. Also, Tajik-Professor appares to be a straw-man sock of NisarKand editing the same pages, but I am not too sure about it. --Mardavich 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * ❌.  Voice -of- All  18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand





 * Code letter: F

The user NisarKand was a Pashtun nationalist and almost all his edits are nationalistic edits. With this sockuppet Aero stud24, he was editing provinces of Afghanistan and claiming that Pashto is the dominant language in every province, which is ridicules and only a Pashtun-nationalist would claim that, such as NisarKand and all his sockpuppets. Also I've provided an old IP address of his. --Behnam 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No code letter provided. Real96 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter provided. Real96 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be code letter "F" because NisarKand is a banned user. Khoikhoi 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand
is known for having one or more sockuppets, and for having partly vandalized Afghanistan-related articles. After two of his sockpuppets were discovered and blocked by admin User:Khoikhoi, two other characters have shown up in the very same articles, continuing NisarKand's discussions and edits (see Afghanistan and Mahmud of Ghazni). Please check the following two accounts, since - I believe - it's very likely that they are two more sockpuppets of NisarKand, since both accounts are new and have directly jumped into existing discussions and edit-wars:



Already blocked sockpuppets of that person are:



There may be more ...

Tājik 19:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Vandalizing is probably too strong a word but they all support very similar edits. I am second this case deserve a Checkuser investigation. Alex Bakharev 00:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right, but I do not know any word that could describe his actions properly. As for User:King of Spirits and User:Italisa: User:King of Spirits has already admitted that User:Italisa is his girlfried, using the same computer . Since they both not only use the same computer, but also have the same agenda, they should be treated like one and the same person. It does not matter anyway, because I am sure that these two are also sockpuppets of NisarKand and that the entire girlfriend-story is made up. Tājik 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More accounts: BlueForce appeares to making threats to Tajik Alex Bakharev 12:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  added by Tājik 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  added by Tājik 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC), after insults
 * 3)  added by Tājik 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  added by Tājik 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: . Khoikhoi 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ all and also, , , and likely  too. Dmcdevit·t 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you sure you don't mean ? Khoikhoi 23:09, 3 December 2006 (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.''