Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NovaSkola/Archive

20 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

is an account that is banned indefinitely from editing topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. ,, and are showing the same pattern of disruptive behavior within the same topic area NovaSkola has been banned from. Both Yacatisma and Novaskola have very similar user profiles: see here and here (note: after this SPI, Yacatisma changed his user profile). Apparently, they both know the same languages and are interested in photography, football/soccer, and have visited the same countries. Hence, it's no secret that the users' interests, as exemplified through their editing pattern and their interests displayed on their user page, are strikingly similar. Yacatisma's first edit was on 16 May 2014. Torpaq's first edit was 18 August. NovaSkola has stopped editing just around then (see history). Interestingly enough, NovaSkola posted a barnstar directly onto the profile of Yacatisma. This is a classic case of WP:DUCK.

'''All accounts are interested in Azerbaijani sports. I have provided diffs, but I suggest that the admins view the history's of both accounts to comprehend better the extent of the similarities:'''
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:

'''All accounts have a peculiar way of doing signatures. They add two hyphens (--) before every signature:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:

All accounts tend to edit in the same articles:
 * 1) Guba mass grave:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:
 * 1) List of Azerbaijanis:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:

Accounts are used to vote-stack deletion nominations:
 * Articles for deletion/Shusha massacre:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:
 * Articles for deletion/Tarlan Guliyev
 * NovaSkola:(comment was 3 minutes after Yacatisma)
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Articles for deletion/Samir Masimov (2nd nomination)
 * NovaSkola:(comment was 6 minutes after Yacatisma)
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:

English appears to be a second-language:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:

All accounts never use edit-summaries:
 * NovaSkola: See contributions here
 * Yacatisma: See contributions here
 * Janavar: See contributions here
 * Torpaq: See contributions here

All accounts have displayed disruptive behavior towards Armenia-related articles:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Torpaq:

Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time to look into this. Sorry to flood this SPI with so many diffs. I'll restrain myself next time. I think not endorsing a CheckUser for Janavar and Torpaq is risky. Both those accounts have been vote-stacking within minutes of deletion nominations. I'm quite puzzled that Torpaq, for example, was very familiar with Wikipedia policy in his first day of editing . I am also puzzled as to how the user came back from a two-day break only to vote delete on one of Yacatisma's AfD's . And those ESL diffs are outdated, just take a look at this diff . I know that Torpaq has edited for only 4 full days in his/her life, but that notion draws even more suspicion. As for Janavar, he came back from a 1 month break just to vote delete on the same AfD . This, coupled with the AfD's that the users have similarly participated before, is highly suspicious. The users all started becoming more active after NovaSkola failed to have his ban lifted from Sandstein . During his conversation with Sandstein, he mentions of "trouble" brewing Guba mass grave article. Soon thereafter, that is when Torpaq and Janavar began to edit the article, showing the same type of disruption in the very article that lead to NovaSkola's ban. All this is too convincing for me. Bbb23, I ask of you to take your time and look into it yourself again if you can. I just think a CheckUser won't hurt. Considering the disruption these users have caused, it will certainly cast aside much of the problems WP:AA2 has faced this past month. Best regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Firstly, I don't know what other user banned for and I shouldn't be related to anybody just due user gave me a barnstar. Secondly, I shouldn't be accused falsely as I make contributions to articles I like. Thirdly, it is very interesting that User:EtienneDolet started to investigate this despite nobody made any complaints at his talk page. It is not hard to see his cooperation with armenian users on his talk page and that looks like breach of administrator's conduct. Regards --Yacatisma (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, why I'm added to this page? What I did wrong? I just recently joined this page.--Torpaq (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only thing i would like to add to this is how Yacatisma knew i had been blocked previously. The block warning was removed from my page a while ago and yet he/she knew. I was also blocked because of NovaSkola and Janavar constantly reverting sources they did not like, just like Yacatisma has been doing.Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew from your contributions, where you secretly hidden in archives from administrators.--Yacatisma (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can not find out who has and has not been banned from contributions. You know moderators know who has and has not been banned right, their is no "secretly" hiding. Also this coming from the individual who removed the warning from a moderator regarding the nonconstructive edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yacatisma&diff=prev&oldid=621813543.Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't removed it, I put in archive. Just like you did. Then where is your achive box?--Yacatisma (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to mention that bother, and  are also suspected in sockpuppetry as seen here  --Yacatisma (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious - are editors able to make obvious bad faith claims of sock puppetry and avoid normal rules of civility and the assumption of good faith? And are they subjected to any sanctions when their allegations are found to be false? I am not "suspected in sockpuppetry" - all we have is a real suspected sockpuppet, Yacatisma, trying to play the system and muddy the water by inventing laughable allegations against the editor who has initiated this spi. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Moderators can do IP checks on accounts. Once the moderators realize User:Yacatisma is lying he/she should receive an indefinite ban. He/she has not provided any sort of evidence which would link the three of us to sock puppetry. He/she is grasping at straws as no one has previously suggested i am a sock puppet of another account. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you to set ban? Before anything, I suggest moders to check false claims on those users and punish them, if I'm not found guilty.--Yacatisma (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. I think there is sufficient evidence for Yacatisma, not just what was presented, but also my own research into behavioral characteristics and the history of their user page. For the others, I'm not as convinced. Some problems with the evidence. Although Etienne provided lots of diffs, it would be better to pair the diffs side by side when he wants to show similarities. In many instances, I didn't see any similarities, but I got frustrated looking at so many diffs that didn't tally. Two hyphens before a signature is normal if one clicks on the pencil to sign (as I do). The diffs about ESL don't demonstrate that for Janavar or Torpaq. Their English seems good. Not always perfect, but even native speakers make mistakes for different reasons. Not using edit summaries adds virtually nothing. Many editors (unfortunately) don't. The topic ban against NovaSkola has an exemption for sports, so he doesn't "need" a sock account to do those edits for him. Despite all these criticisms, a CU seems warranted if for no one other than Yacatisma.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , diffs are important, but the quality and formatting of the diffs are more important than the number. Also, when you make accusations that don't appear to be supported by the evidence, it undermines your other accusations, even if they are supported. An example of that was the poor English. Another example is in the diff you just provided about "trouble brewing". He doesn't mention anything about that. He says he's been "trouble free", not at all the same thing. I've done enough reviewing of the this material; I don't intend to do more. If it consoles you at all, the ultimate decision as to what to check is the checkuser's not mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All accounts indeffed and tagged. Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

17 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Picks up from previous sock Yacatisma in heavily editing favourite article and other Azerbaizan football topics. New user displays suprising knowledge of en.wp, including SPI process, launching own SPIs against IPs. Think there are supporting socks, but Checkuser will be needed to sort them out. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Indeed, both accounts are strikingly similar. Please see the Editor Interaction Analysis, it's a classic case of WP:DUCK. As for my response here, I have excluded the previous socks and have limited the evidence to support the underlining similarities because the current SPA and the master account. In other words, I have excluded, , and the other SPA accounts from my response as those are a classic DUCK cases at any rate. But feel free to add the SPA accounts to the Editor Interaction Analysis to get a further understanding of how similar all of these accounts are. They all edit the same articles in the same way. With that said, since the activities of the current SPA are not much different from the others, I will retain the same section headers and evidential support as underlined in my previous SPI report filed in August of this year.

'''Both accounts are interested in Azerbaijani sports. I have provided diffs, but I suggest that the admins view the history's of both accounts to comprehend better the extent of the similarities:'''
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:

'''Obsessed to include, in various articles, the Guba mass grave and overtly blame Armenians for it. His SPA's have taken this to another level in August of this year as shown in the previous report. Here's some examples:'''
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Janavar:
 * Xoncha:

'''Both accounts have a peculiar way of doing signatures. They add two hyphens (--) before every signature:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:

'''Both accounts tend to edit in the same articles. Might I also add that the Editor Interaction Analysis provides a striking similarity between editing patterns of both accounts. Among a few examples include:''' English appears to be a second-language:
 * 1) Azerbaijan national football team:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:
 * 1) List of Azerbaijanis:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:
 * 1) Araz-Naxçıvan PFK:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:

Both accounts never use edit-summaries:
 * NovaSkola: See contributions here
 * Xoncha: See contributions here

Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Seems to need checking; there is also a high rate of editing other topics on Azerbaijan, and I note that even before the indefinite block of NovaSkola, he had been subject to an indefinite "topic ban from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan... but with a sports exemption." There were multiple blocks for evading this topic ban at User talk:NovaSkola/Archive 2, so the edits to other Azerbaijan topics may also be an indication of something beyond just similar interests. Dekimasu よ! 23:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The users, , , , , and  are all ✅ socks of  and are now blocked and tagged. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

04 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This user is acting suspiciously similar to User:Xoncha who was confirmed a sockpuppet of User:NovaSkola. After User:Xoncha was confirmed to be sockpuppet, the articles he created were deleted according to WP:G5. But, Nicat49 was able to recreate some of these articles in exactly the same form as they were before deletion (articles Anar Mammadkhanov and 2017 Women's European Volleyball Championship). The history of "Anar Mammadkhanov" article was later restored by administrator User:Ricky81682 so that we can compare the deleted article with the new one created by Nicat49 and see that they are identical. Also, as User:Ricky81682 pointed out here, this edit by Nicat49 immediately follows Xoncha's editing and this restored Xoncha's edit. When asked to explain how he was able to recreate deleted article in the exact same form (here), Nicat49 did not give any explanation. This leads me to suspicion that Nicat49 is actually the same person as Xoncha, or NovaSkola. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * In typical WP:DUCK fashion, the user still displays a strong interest in Azerbaijani sports . The Editor Interaction Analyzer is strikingly similar. The account started to edit much more heavily after the previous socks were blocked. I have no doubt it's him. But even if we have this account blocked, I'm sure he'll return. After seeing his contributions untouched, it's no doubt that he sees the benefit of socking and will continue to do so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor Interaction Analysis is even more similar if we compare Nicat49 with Xoncha . Vanjagenije (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I know user Nicat49 and user NovaSkola personally. They are different persons. If some users are interested in same topics it doesn't mean that they are the same person. --Interfase (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Interfase if what you say is correct then perhaps a separate block on Nicat49 would be better than a sock investigation if there is new problematic behaviour. Though these old moves 15:13, 6 October 2014 Nicat49 (talk | contribs) moved page Tärlän Quliyev to Tarlan Guliyev (Tärlän Quliyev is Azerbaijani) are exactly those of the blocked sock, haven't been repeated. Are these two (or one) users blocked on Azerbaijani Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, these two users were not blocked in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if they were different people with similar interests, the ability to restore the exact same text (including footnotes and all) is pretty questionable. I don't know what's going on, if the editor saved a copy of their work before deletion or what. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I have no doubt that these two accounts are the same user, if they don't get blocked on a DUCK or CPU check basis, they should be seriously questioned for WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor does claim it was from part of an archive of articles on the topic kept on their computer. Strange at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's strange? I still kept in his computer a lot of articles that are related to Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis, and I explained how I created an article about Anar Mammadkhanov here - 1 if I had known it would be so much trouble, I would not even created.. -- Nicat49 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's technically ❌ to previous NovaSkola socks however the behavioural evidence is very difficult to ignore. If we believe that they had the articles saved on their computer then we are still left with the editor interaction analysis and WP:MEAT. But I'm not sure what to do here, as I do believe their reasoning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think it's possible that the users aren't related. They've amassed thousands of edits and have a similar interest in topics, so it's expected for the editors to have some overlap. I looked at the edits from the behavioral analysis tool and I don't see anything that suggests they are in cohorts with each other or belong to the same individual. There's one AfD where they have the same, simple comment, but not much more than that. Given the checkuser results and the user's reasonable explanation, I'm inclined to close this with no further action taken. Mike V  •  Talk  00:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

17 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

100% same users. User:Atabəy is a clone of banned User:NovaSkola. Just compare these two pages, exactly same edits and same content: rev1/diff1, rev2/diff2. The clone is not active anymore since 2011, but I request a usercheck to ban and block all NovaSkola's alternative accounts. This troll used multiple accounts to evade blocks. 188.158.72.218 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. The links to versions of the two user pages do not demonstrate much. I'm not going to block an account that hasn't edited since 2011 without a compelling justification. It's useless to request a CU when the account is stale. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

06 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious WP:DUCK. I've dealt with this account way too many times before. The master sock, NovaSkola, was topic-banned quite some time ago. However, the user hasn't ceased editing through SPAs since then. He has now returned with a new account:.

The editor Intersect Contribs shows 52 articles that both NovaSkola and Ulvi Rustam edited and 51 articles that both Xoncha and Ulvi Rustam edited. That's staggering considering that Ulvi Rustam started editing as recent as 10 March 2015.

I added other socks, notably Xoncha and Yacastima, to this investigation in order to fully emphasize the SPAs history of similar routines and habits.

'''All accounts are interested in Azerbaijani sports. They have edited similar articles (there's so many of these):'''


 * 1) Azerbaijan national football team:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:
 * Ulvi Rustam:


 * 1) Gabala FK:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Xoncha:
 * Ulvi Rustam:

All accounts never use edit-summaries:
 * NovaSkola: See contributions
 * Yacatisma: See contributions
 * Janavar: See contributions
 * Torpaq: See contributions
 * Ulvi Rustam: See contributions

'''All accounts edit(ed) same "favorite football teams" that are on Ulvi Rustam's user page:"


 * 1) Qarabağ FK:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Xoncha:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Ulvi Rustam:


 * 1) Neftchi PFK:
 * NovaSkola:
 * Yacatisma:
 * Ulvi Rustam:


 * 1) RC Lens:
 * Yacatisma:
 * NovaSkola:


 * 1) Tractor Sazi F.C.:
 * Xoncha: Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As someone slightly involved in this case, a few things stand out me. First, this editor attempted to add the Azerbaijan Premier League to WP:FPL (diff) something a previous NovaSkola sock also attempted (diff). Second, registering an account and then not editing from it until two years later, smells pretty fishy to me. Add to that the fact that NovaSkola had just come off a month long WP:AE block, and it begins look like maybe they were hedging their bets, thinking they might be blocked for violating their topic ban again. On the other, this editor has been far less aggressive and overtly nationalist than previous socks. All told, I think a connection is definitely possible, but I'm less convinced than Etienne Drolet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. I don't see very strong evidence of a connection here. CheckUser would be stale, but doing some more digging, this account was created in 2013 and should have been picked up by previous CheckUsers if it was related. The intersecting edits aren't very good as evidence either, there are numerous editors who only edit these articles, the same as any sport. It looks like it's just another user with an interest in Azerbaijani football. Going back into the archive, it was pointed out before that this formatting is not ideal, and "not using edit summaries" is not useful as evidence. Can you provide any two diffs, side-by-side, that show this account is connected to the others? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * gives more compelling evidence, but this account's attempt to add to the list at WP:FPL is different enough to suggest it's just coincidence. Ulvi Rustam has a similar number of intersects with many other accounts which only edit in this topic area, and the diffs provided of innocuous statistic updates aren't helpful as there are many accounts performing these drive-by updates, just like there are in any sports topic. We would need CheckUser here to make a connection, and that's not possible on the older accounts, therefore closing with no action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

 is a suspected sockpuppet of and its derived sockpuppet. The user shares strong edit history overlaps with the confirmed sockpuppets on the topics of Azerbaijani football, Scotland and Scottish politics, and the individual Fuad Alakbarov. Evidence also confirms that both this user and the sockpuppets of NovaSkola are all handles of Fuad Alakbarov himself.

Azerifactory is the creator of and primary contributor to Fuad Alakbarov. In a 2015 edit they disclosed that they were the subject of that article.

Alakbarov's corresponding article on Azerbaijani Wikipedia was created by and heavily contributed to by its sockpuppets including, and is now being maintained by. Both the sockpuppets and Azerifactory have contributed strongly personal information to this article without any formal references, suggesting it is of autobiographical nature.

A tweet from 21 Aug 2014 by Fuad Alakbarov's official Twitter account states he created the Azerbaijani Wikipedia pages for Scotland and Palestine, presumably referring to these formative edits made by on those pages on or just before the same date: ' ' . The evidence therefore demonstrates that both Yacatisma and Azerifactory have been claimed by Alakbarov, and thus confirms the relationship between them as sockpuppets.

Editor interaction reports for Azerifactory with Yacatisma and NovaSkola also show strong edit overlaps in the topics of Azerbaijani football, Scotland and Scottish politics, the name Fuad, and the insertion of Fuad Viento/Alakbarov into various list articles. In one example, Yacatisma adds Fuad Viento (individual's earlier alias) to this list, which is then later renamed to Fuad Alakbarov by Azerifactory.

Finally, Azerifactory was created on 24 February 2015, about four months after the final confirmed sockpuppets of NovaSkola were banned.

While it is possible that in the four years since the account was created Azerifactory has changed their editing behaviour and style in response to the earlier successful sockpuppet reports, the overlap in the topic of articles being edited and the specific articles being edited remains. The external evidence identifying both accounts with the individual Fuad Alakbarov removes any further doubt that they are being used by the same person. Wrenhaven (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Hi, thank you for the quick response. I should probably clear up concerns re my own account: I was a very active Wikia user about a decade ago so I am aware of how these things work, although I modelled this report on earlier ones against the initial sockpuppet. However, I have no dog in the fight regarding the azwiki disputes, have never edited there, and do not speak Azerbaijani myself. My interest in this user came about yesterday after coming across the article on Fuad Alakbarov. It became immediately apparent that the article did not meet notability requirements and on the whole looked oddly written, so I had a look at the edit history and I saw that it had been created and mainly contributed to by one user, Azerifactory. A comparison of the article's edit history on its bulkier azwiki counterpart showed quite clearly that the three users mentioned above were either quite closely related to the subject in question or were the subject himself. So I did some digging into NovaSkola and Yacatisma, as well as the earlier activity of Azerifactory, and gathered evidence for this case overnight. It does seem like I have opened a can of worms here looking at the situation with azwiki currently, but if anything I hope this can move that forward, because it would appear that a sysop on that wiki has been abusing a sockpuppet for four years and has used it for self-promotion on English Wikipedia. Wrenhaven (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. This is absolutetly witchhunt against me. I'm not related to following accounts which I think are banned and could you provide any hard evidence that I'm that user except accusing me without any evidence. So anybody editing in that account must be related to banned users? , it was very odd that you're aware of all banned users, perhaps you are that banned user yourself. --Azerifactory (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of what the protocol is for accepting external evidence, but what is done about the statement from Alakbarov's official Twitter account that he created the articles on Scotland and Palestine on Azerbaijani Wikipedia: which must refer to the formative edits made by on those articles on the same date? If such evidence is admissible it is surely proof that both accounts are operated by Alakbarov. Secondly, I have edited on Wikipedia with one other user, although it has never been blocked or otherwise involved in controversy, and I have never edited on Az Wiki. So if it needs to be disclosed to a relevant admin I can do that, otherwise I do not see an immediate need to disclose it publicly given the WP:CLEANSTART policy. Wrenhaven (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I guarantee that Azerifactory is UNRELATED to Fuad Alakbarov. Alakbarov is a known public person, he has a lot of students, and has 11K followers on Twitter. I've personally talked with him via Facebook. He barely knows Azerifactory, who created article about him, probably for patriotic reasons. Alakbarov has been targeted by Armenian lobbyists numerous times, this might be another attack carried out by them... --► Sincerely:  A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔  (hail sithis!)  02:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, It's pretty sure that I'm not anybody's meatpuppet at all, I'm deeply shocked to see this comment that attending to a poll can have such a consequence, nevertheless among my contribution in Wikipedia, I keep participating the deletion sorting discussions. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aykhan, if you are claiming that Azerifactory "barely knows" Alakbarov, could you please explain this comment? Azerifactory by his own admission states that the "article is about him". Wrenhaven (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. 1) I'm not Sock puppetry. This is mistake. All admins of azerbaijani wiki know me, you can ask their opinions about me. Also if you want you can check my account. 2) About - Fuad Alakbarov (2nd nomination). My english is bad, but I read this page in azviki (Fuad Ələkbərov) and I think the article is eating enough sources, maybe I'm wrong but this is my opinion. Regards.--Nicat49 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This is another ludacris accusation from . He's accusing me of to know somebody that I've never had any connection., I would like you to take stance on Cabayi as by this rate he gonna tag every random user from Azerbaijani Wikipedia, to falsely accuse their time with me, which is also waste of admin time.--Azerifactory (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm a trainee but I'm not claiming exclusivity on this as a training case. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - While some of the evidence stands up, it's been long known and has been seen by a CU before. Other bits of evidence are not robust, conflating m:Special:CentralAuth/NovaSkola and m:Special:CentralAuth/NovaSkola~azwiki (not certain given the timing around mw:SUL finalisation). When a low activity editor returns after several months and files a well-formed SPI report as  has done, citing a sysop on another wiki as a suspect I feel uncomfortable. When I see that the whole admin corps there is under a cloud it looks like this case is being filed as an extention of azwiki disputes by a sockpuppet of an interested party in that dispute and the case needs to be kicked upstairs. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What account are you asking to be checked? And compared to what other account?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , My bad. I should have been clearer. I clicked on "Endorse for CU attention" intending for the issue pushed onward to interwiki checkuser given the cross-wiki and azwiki issues rather than intending a request for an investigation here. Having split up the issues and gathered my thoughts, & the evidence to flesh them out, I now see that the case may be made entirely on enwiki.
 * ' - needs investigation. With only 28 edits, showing an interest in the caucasus (az & hy were very early additions to the Wrenhaven's global accounts list), & filing a comprehensive SPI case, this account isn't as disinterested as Wrenhaven's reply would have us believe. The allegations against AF were first raised by ' on meta on 9 May. Both accounts are fresh. Given the multiple (and mutual) accusations of multiple sockpuppetry on that meta page, please confirm & check for sleepers.
 * I've raised an AFD for Azerifactory's autobiography.
 * the notes of Fuad's political endorsements (Yacatisma, 2014 Scottish referendum, Azerifactory, Bernie Sanders 2020)
 * the chess from NovaSkola Special:Permalink/605644032, Special:Permalink/412343392, and Fuad himself, "Since 2017, Alakbarov represents Scotland at international chess championships."
 * together with the evidence given by Wrenhaven, regardless of motivation, convince me that Azerifactory is just block evasion by NovaSkola. Again, given the accusations of multiple sockpuppetry on meta, please check for sleepers. Cabayi (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what's needed regarding Wrenhaven. However, is there a non-stale NovaSkola sock to compare Azerifactory against?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see. There may be something in the Azeri text allegations on meta, but I don't think so (most of the bad stuff seems to be repeated in English for a wider audience pretty quickly). I'm happy to deal with AF on the behavioural evidence. Cabayi (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wrenhaven and Aykhan Zayedzadeh are ❌. Based on CU logs, Azerifactory is very to NovaSkola.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please e-mail me the name of the other user and explain what you mean by "with one other user" as it's unclear whether you mean in concert with a separate person or that you operated the previous account. I will not reply to the e-mail, but I will review it and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The AFD on 's autobiography has drawn in 3 obviously canvassed keep !voters (solicited off-wiki). One of them (who seems unable to communicate in English) was previously suspected of being a NovaSkola sock by  in 2014.
 * I'm now sufficiently convinced by the behavioural evidence to ask that &  be blocked indef as meatpuppets of NovaSkola.
 * and should be aware of the risks associated with responding to off-wiki canvassing. Cabayi (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and should be aware of the risks associated with responding to off-wiki canvassing. Cabayi (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've put this case on hold. I'm troubled by the recommendations of and, at a minimum, want to delay any administrative action against the two users.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * responding from your meta ping. My understanding of the situation on az.wiki is that there is a lot of off-wiki collaboration that goes on through private social media groups. While I think there are issues with that from a perspective of a project having a group of users who run it via a Facebook group and block people based on comments in a Facebook group, I'd be very hesitant to block on en.wiki based of supposed off-site collaboration/MEAT.Other language projects are much more open to this than en.wiki is, and if there was a policy violation here, it could be an honest mistake based on what they thought was normal. is more familiar with the situation on that project than I am, so he might have another suggestion, but those are my thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for short-term blocks (maybe) but I would be very reluctant to indef based on this. --Rschen7754 00:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I too was hesitant in regard to this case and was in two minds about the collaboration/MEAT question. My opinion was swung when the three keep !votes appeared on the AFD. If they were unsolicited, then it's an amazing coincidence that all 3 were cast in a couple of hours, with none before or after. Had they shown signs of independent thought I might agree with the assessment of collaboration, but one was a repetition of AF's argument (including its misinterpretation of WP:NTEMP), one in Azeri (cast on the basis of the Azeri article with no basis in enwiki standards, and showing no interaction with the question on enwiki), and a bald vote with no reasoning or comment - that pushes the question firmly over the line in my mind, and shows a consistent attitude to MEAT.
 * I accept that my opinion my be overruled - but I'm quite content to stand by the opinion I've reached. If it's not MEAT, doesn't that push the question out of the realm of SPI and into ANI's remit? Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this case should be closed now. Azerifactory hasn't edited in 11 days and Nicat49 appears to be reverting ethnic vandalism to food pages (which of course is a thing...) I also don't think ANI would do much at this time since one of the editors in question has stopped editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)