Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hashim-afc

Hashim-afc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

26 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Issue is related to the non-free use of File:Iraq Football Association logo.png in Iraq national football team and other related articles. The file's non-free use was previously discussed in two separate FFD discussions (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 27#File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#Iraq Football Association logos) and the close by two different administrators was the the file's non-free use is only NFCC compliant in Iraq Football Association.

Hashim-afc is an editor who regularly contributes to soccer articles, etc. related to Iraq. He participated in the second of the two aforementioned FFDs[1]. He has also discussed the first FFD close with the closing admin [2],received a reply[3], but even so accused me of "ruining articles" and targeting specific pages.[4][5][6][7] He has re-added the logo to the article despite the closes,[8][9][10] a couple of times and even engaged in a bit of what might be considered pointy editing.[11] Despite all of that, however, Hashim-afc appeared to be willing to try and resolve this through discussion. Even thogh the logo issue still remains unresolved, things seemed to have settled down until recently.

On December 18, 2016, IP#1 shows up to re-add the logo.[12]

The logo is removed, only to be added on January 22, 2017, by IP#2 [13], who claims removing the logo is discrimination and apologizes for their bad English in the edit sum (which is something Hashim-afc seemed to imply in one of his posts to me[14])

The logo is removed again, then IP#3 posted on my user talk claiming discrimination and mentioning the "france logo, italy logo, portugal logo or netherlands"[15] which are some of the teams that Hashim-afc often tried to use as counter examples to support his argument.[16]

I responded to IP#3 and then IP#4 posted on my user talk making similar claims using similar teams as a counter examples.[17] This IP addressed me using "hi friend" which is similar to how Hashim-afc began some of his posts to me.[18][19][20]

IP#5 then posts something on my user talk making basically the same claims[21] and then proceeds to re-add the file to the article.[22].

Finally, IP#6 then started a long FFD really general FFD discussion about the the file's use making basically the same claims about me as the other IPs and Hashim-afc[23] and then posted on my use talk.[24] In posts I made on the user talk pages of IP#1[25] and IP#2[26], I mentioned to the IPs that one way to try and resolve this matter would be to seek a new consensus at FFD. It appears that Hashim-afc was going to do that [27], but then self-reverted.[28] The FFD discusison was then started by IP#6.

I'm not against trying to resolve the issue of non-free use through discussion, but it seems strange that new IPs are appearing out of the blue to try and re-hash an old dispute. It seems apparent that these IPs are not complete newbies and the accounts are being used by someone familiar with the issue of the logo. Perhaps the person behind this (if not Hashem-afc) feels using the IPs is a way for them to make the same claims, while keeping their main account safe from WP:SCRUTINY. Whatever the reason, it does not seem to be an appropriate use of multiple accounts per WP:ILLEGIT. Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Checkuser should not be used to publicly connect an account to an IP address. Since there are no other named accounts, and the IPs can be checked for similarities by any user, Checkuser is not warranted in this case. Yunshui 雲水 09:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits are old now, beyond what I'd block for. Re-report if it resumes. Closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Possible socking involving the GA review of Al-Shorta SC. The article was first nominated for GA status here on January 10, 2017 by Hashim-afc, the nomination was subsequently removed by Hashim-afc here on the January 27, 2017, and then the article was renominated by Hashim-afc here on March 24, 2017. A GA review for the article was started here on March 24, 2017 at 05:48 (UTC+9) by Yakaba99, an account which was only created two miniutes before on March 24, 2017 at 05:486 (UTC+9). The second edit made anywhere on Wikiepdia by Yakaba99 was to start a GA article review. Not only does this seem suspicious both timing and account wise, it also seems questionable that an editor with no history of any editing of Wikipedia articles is the best person to review an article for GA status. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a GA of an article could be properly completed by such an editor in a single day.

The nomination, self revert, re-nomination of the article for GA status is quite similar to what happened regarding the nomination of "File:Iraq Football Association logo.png" for discusion at WP:FFD. See the discusion about the IPs above for 26 January 2017 for the diffs. Hashim-afc makes an edit, self reverts, and then a new account appears to follow up. The processes for GA review and FFD are not exactly the same, so the both situations are not 100% identical, but it does seem to indicate a pattern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct the time the account for Yakaba99 was created. The correct time is "05:46 (UTC+9)", not "05:48 (UTC+9). --07:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hey Marchjuly (talk · contribs). The first thing I would like to say is that I did not create an account 2 minutes before I started the review. I created a user page two minutes before I started the review so that people who saw the review could know more about me as this was my first edit. I am a massive football fan and have been reading Wikipedia for years and know a lot about it (I have made many IP edits) and now I want to get involved in helping improve football articles so I created an account. I knew about good articles from reading about them before and I decided to review Al-Shorta SC as this is about a football club, and GA article reviews always lead to pages being improved. I am also going to review the India national football team article soon, which was nominated to be a good article a few days ago, and am hoping to review a lot more football-related articles as I want to improve them. I have read a lot of good article reviews in the past so I know how to do them effectively. A lot of the GA reviews I came across are completed in one or two days; if you have a lot of free time on your hands this really isn't difficult! I can promise that I am not a sock-puppet of User:Hashim-afc and I did my best to give an honest review and pointed out a lot of issues in the article to improve. I also pointed out that I wasn't sure that the use of non-free logos in this article was correct, but in truth I forgot about it the day after which I take responsibility for. I still believe the article would qualify to be a GA article if these non-free logos were removed as they are not essential to the article. But I am absolutely fine if you want a more experienced editor to make the assessment, it makes sense. While I may be a new user in that I only created an account recently, I have been editing Wikipedia as an IP for a long time and am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policies. Yakaba99 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were editing Wikipedia using different account(s), then providing more information about the account(s) here would be helpful. The very first edit made by the "Yakaba99" was two minutes prior to beginning the GA review as can be seen in Special:Contributions/Yakaba99. There are no edits made prior to that. Moreover, the edit count for the account shown here shows that account has made a total of 22 edits and the post you made above was your 22nd edit which means that no edits have been reverted. So, again if you were using other accounts, providing more information about them might help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This is my first registered account, and you are correct that my first edit using this registered account was 2 minutes before I started the review which was to create a user page so that people could know a little more about me (I am planning to add more to this user page soon). I have made many edits over the years using various IP addresses and now I decided to create a registered account for my first GA review which I don't think is strange at all. I wanted to review something to do with football so I chose Al-Shorta SC, which just so happened to have been nominated on that day. Looking back, I can understand that this was a coincidence and I don't blame you for being concerned, but I'm telling the truth! I was about to start reviewing the India national football team article just before this, and now I don't know if I should start it! Yakaba99 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed. Blocked the master for one month and blocked/tagged the puppet. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hashim-afc/Archive&oldid=1072189110"