Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Executioner

Executioner 25 June 2008

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 220:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Executioner (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Suspected Related Users

• 119.30.66.60 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Rationale

• Reason: Executioner often tries to delete or change images I upload. A few days ago he did it with his IP so that he doesn't get into trouble for it. I know that this is his his IP range because it is this IP that he uses when placing the images he uploads on Commons onto articles in EnWiki. Here is the diff where he tries to delete an image that I uploaded. Executioner often puts "cleanup" in his edit summaries, here he puts cleanup in the edit summary but does not do a cleanup at all. Instead he puts a deletion tag on the image. He has tried deleting images I upload many times. Also, just a few days ago he also made racist remarks about Persian-Iranian women basically calling them ugly on his talk page, see here. He clearly shows he is racist toward Iranian women so it makes sense that he would try to delete their images from Commons. Due to this evidence I am sure this IP is him vandalizing the image of the Iranian woman I uploaded. Editing with an IP is ok, but using your IP to get away with racism inspired vandalism is sockpuppetry. Le Behnam (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Executioner

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Executioner (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Suspected Related Users

• PRTkand (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wikireporter (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Rationale

• Reason: user: PRTkand uploads many images with false licenses. The images he uploads are very closely related to the ones user: Executioner uploads, usually having to do with Afghanistan, Pashtuns, mainly Pashtuns (see their contributions here and here). Not only that, user: Executioner often categories PRTkand's images and places them on various pages. Thus, it seems that Executioner uses PRTkand to upload images with false licenses so that he doesn't get caught and banned. Le Behnam 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Firstly, stay on topic, don't change the subject. I'm pretty sure that I don't even live in the same country as Jahongard. PRTkand uploaded certain images he claim were his own. When it was questioned wether he really produced these images, he created a FlickR account and uploaded the images to his FlickR account to fool people. I know these images are not his because NisarKand had uploaded these on the EnWiki and they were removed from there. For example, PRTkand uploaded this image and claimed it as his creation, yet the image can be found here. Both PRTkand and Excecutioner use FlickR alot and are very familiar with it. PRTkand is most likely a user named [NisarKand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NisarKand] on the EnWiki who was banned for various reasons, one reason which he claimed images as his own just like this PRTkand. And their name sounds strikingly familiar. Since then he has gotten very good at covering his tracks and now he uses a sockpuppet just incase he gets caught. He has a lot of edits and it would take me some time to go through them and prove it... but if you check his IP I guarantee they will match. -- Le Behnam 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The image ( Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png ) you give as an example, is, I believe, asserted to be a painting that would certainly qualify as PD based on age. It may be poorly tagged but is not a clear copyvio evidence. Using sockpuppets is not against policy, per se. I've already checked the users in question and know whether they are a match or not. Please provide a few diffs (not an exhaustive list, that is not necessary) of where both users are acting in concert to violate policy: reuploading images after they were already deleted by consensus, using the two ids to show false consensus, evading bans, or the like. If you cannot show that these two IDs are acting in a disruptive way it is not appropriate to reveal the results of my checking. I hope you understand but I as of yet am not seeing the evidence of disruption. What I see is users on both sides casting aspersions on the other side. I welcome correction if I have some of this wrong. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I really appreciate that you checked their IPs. Also I've added user: Wikireporter to the sockpuppet list. I'm pretty sure he's another sockpuppet of his... again same type of images of Pashtun people with false licenses. A few examples of false license are:

• user: Wikireporter uploaded [this image claiming he is the copyright holder... but you can find the image [here] and it belongs to RAWA.
• user: Wikireporter claims he took this photo, but if you check his IP (which should be the same as user: Executioner/user: PRTkand)he does not even live in Italy.
• user: PRTkand claims that he is the copyright holder of this image but the same image can be found here so he cannot be the copyright holder. -- Le Behnam 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that user: Executioner has used these two sockpuppets (which the IP should confirm) to upload these 3 images with fraudulent licenses, and since that is a violation... this would be illegal sockpuppetry. -- 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

diffs are needed

OK, once again, more slowly because I don't think you are listening to me yet. I need diffs.

• Regarding the image of Meena: Image:Meena_RAWA.jpg ... the site you give does not have the same image. It has a crop of what is no doubt a similar image, but you have not proved that this image is ineligible for Commons. That site's license may not be valid, they got a different image from somewhere. I agree the license it tagged incorrectly but the thing to do is to nominate the image for deletion and or work to get it licensed right. The information you have given about this image does not in any way prove allegations of sockpuppetry that evade our rules. It was not uploaded by more than one ID, it was not uploaded after being deleted, the licenses haven't been changed repeatedly by more than one ID, etc. If I missed something, give diffs please. Not just list off images, but actually give me a diff that shows the malfeasance. If you don't know what a diff is, please read this: w:WP:DIFF.
• Next. Regarding the image of Ahmed Shah Durani: Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png As I already explained this is an image of a painting of a person who died well over 200 years ago. If the painting was done around the time of his death, it's not eligible for copyright. The image may be tagged wrong, but it needs correcting, that's all. If the painting was done recently, please find a site that asserts that, not just that asserts copyright on everything on the site. Those sorts of blanket claims can be disregarded when it is obvious that they can't actually assert copyright. The information you have given about this image does not in any way prove allegations of sockpuppetry that evade our rules. It was not uploaded by more than one ID, it was not uploaded after being deleted, the licenses haven't been changed repeatedly by more than one ID, etc. If I missed something, give diffs please. Not just list off images and make claims, but actually give me a diff (or pair of diffs) that shows the malfeasance. If you don't know what a diff is, please read this: w:WP:DIFF
• Next. regarding Image:MalalaiJoya giglio.jpg ... People travel. It doesn't matter whether he lives in Italy or not. To assert that he could not have taken the picture, you need to find it somewhere else. The information you have given about this image does not in any way prove allegations of sockpuppetry that evade our rules. It was not uploaded by more than one ID, it was not uploaded after being deleted, the licenses haven't been changed repeatedly by more than one ID, etc. If I missed something, give diffs please. Not just list off images and make claims, but actually give me a diff (or pair of diffs) that shows the malfeasance. If you don't know what a diff is, please read this: w:WP:DIFF

I think this case should be closed unless someone can show some evidence that these alleged sockpuppets are actually doing something that is against our guidelines, and are using socks specifically to do it. The images uploaded need to be handled through regular channels. Executioner got blocked back in July but has not had any blocks since then... If the user persists in uploading poorly licensed things, or uploading things we already deleted, the user is eligible for a block. At THAT point, there may be cause to investigate further if there is continued evasion. Right now, you have not presented evidence of that. Sorry to be a hard case but it is not appropriate to ask the Checkuser to do all the investigating. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Results

• Le Behnam: I have carried out the check and I have the results. Before I provide them publicly, please provide specific examples of behaviour (with diffs) that suggest these are related users, and that the userids are being used to circumvent policy, to justify the check. Merely categorizing an image that the other ID uploaded is not sufficient. I note that you, Le Behnam, and Executioner appear to be engaged in a dispute in a number of areas. CU is not to be used to retaliate against those you disagree with. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Executioner: If you want to allege sockpuppetry, please start a new page. Please describe how the diffs you provide give evidence of puppetry, and give evidence of behaviour that is against our policies (socks themselves are not banned, only misusing them) ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am closing this following Lar's rationale. If there is more about this, pull this request out of the archive. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)