Meta:Requests for CheckUser information

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from RFCU)
Jump to: navigation, search
←Requests and proposals Requests for CheckUser information on Meta (for other wikis please go to here) Archives (current)→
Shortcut:
RfCU
This page allows you to request CheckUser information on Meta. When adding new requests, please use the {{checkuser}} template to list the user names in question and {{checkip}} for IP adresses, which simplifies investigation. For example, "{{checkuser|Jimbo Wales}}" will result in:

Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs)
Checkuser icons
These indicators are used by CheckUsers and stewards for easier skimming of their notes, actions and comments.
Confirmed Confirmed MoreInfo Additional information needed
Likely Likely Deferred Deferred to
Possible Possible Completed Completed
Unlikely Unlikely Note Note:
Unrelated Unrelated Doing Doing...
Inconclusive Inconclusive Stale Stale
Declined Declined Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing
Pixiedust CheckUser is not magic pixie dust 8ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
Duck It looks like a duck to me Crystalball CheckUser is not a crystal ball


Contents

[edit] Requests for Meta only

[edit] James Salsman

I'm noting here that I ran a checkuser on the two Survey accounts and came to find that James Salsman (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) is very Likely Likely related them (both of which are blocked). Additionally, it is technically Confirmed Confirmed that CHSTF (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) = James Salsman (though, CHSTF has made no edits). I have refrained from blocking James Salsman for now, but would appreciate input and would not be opposed to an admin blocking. It is also worth noting, that CheckUser indicates that none of the accounts sent a single email. Tiptoety talk 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I see any reason he shouldn't be blocked. Not sure about the duration, though. --MZMcBride 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) As I said on User talk:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey, if the user has engaged in email abuse and multiple accounts abuse, a block should be considered for all his accounts. I'd like to verify whether he's likely to abuse more in the future on Meta, but it might not be needed. Nemo 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What policy am I being accused of violating? I explicitly announced that I would be using a role account to send anonymous email, but that announcement has been revision-deleted! My understanding is that role accounts are allowed on Meta. Is that not the case? James Salsman 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No...it was reverted, not revdeleted. They are two different things. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see. I'm not used to seeing strikeout in histories like that. Is there a policy against role accounts on Meta? James Salsman 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Role account specifically says that they are not sanctioned. Tiptoety talk 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure if there was abuse of multiple accounts here or just stupidity. I'm actually leaning toward the latter given that the account was disclosed and that there doesn't seem to be much (obvious) ill intention here. A block isn't strictly necessary, I don't think. Meta-Wiki simply needs a break—a respite—from this user's stupidity. If he voluntarily goes away for a while (the equivalent of a block), I'd be perfectly content. --MZMcBride 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Salsman, I guess the real question here is do you confirm that the accounts I listed above are yours, and if so can you offer us an explanation as to why they were created? Tiptoety talk 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes; all were created to anonymize outgoing survey emails as I disclosed from the first. The others were not explicitly created on Meta, they were created on enwiki (where "Survey" was disallowed because it was already the name of someone's global account) but they became automatically created here when I browsed a Meta page while logged in on enwiki. Note that WP:UNBAN specifically allows emails to enwiki admins, and I have announced repeatedly that I am trying to support my ban appeal by service to the community. None of the accounts were used for editing; only for sending email. James Salsman 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Mass email is exactly what I'm worried about. It's not really a matter of being banned, I wouldn't have sent so many emails myself without some clearer community/process support. Assuming good faith, I'd want to be sure that you won't repeat the mistake. Thanks, Nemo 09:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The survey had been approved for distribution for more than 2.5 years. I discussed it with Philippe and tried to discuss it with Sue over that period, I discussed it with Philippe in the days prior to the most recent Office Hour, on IRC during the most recent Office Hour, and I stated that I would be sending emails, and I discussed those emails while I was sending them. Given the fact that people have been misrepresenting my actions in a way which appears to be intentional, and that I have been told that there is a policy requiring pre-approval for such work, but apparently that policy has not yet been drafted, and that I was told the legal department directed me to destroy the collected data and was expecting my email even though they have not replied to it for days now, I think there are some very serious ethics issues here. James Salsman 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Nemo: I'd be more inclined to assume good faith regarding the multiple account creations if this weren't, y'know, habit for this user. --MZMcBride 20:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good faith about what? Has anyone suggested that the survey was harmful in any way or that I am going to use the results for some nefarious purpose? Several formerly inactive admins who received the survey have already returned to enwiki editing, which is a far more positive result than anyone had hoped. I am certain that the results will be even more useful, but they will have to be posted to mailing lists since there has been an Office Action deleting the preliminary results. I am still waiting to hear back from the legal department who I was told authorized the deletion of the preliminary results, ordering me to the delete the respondent data, and were expecting my email. James Salsman 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

←Getting back on track to the topic at hand. Since Salsman confirmed that CHSTF (talk · contribs) was one of his (I thought it may have been a false positive on my end), I ran a few more checks. I found that Tashir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) and Selery (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser • CentralAuth • AllContribs) are practicly Confirmed Confirmed socks of yours as well. I should note that both are currently blocked on en.wiki for abusing multiple accounts [1], [2]. Salsman, are these accounts yours as well? Tiptoety talk 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to confirm or deny. Note that Selery was blocked because of an ANI report by at least three GNAA members. I have had more than enough trouble with GNAA malice off-wiki far beyond anything I've ever been accused of. James Salsman (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Given this most recent evidence I have indef blocked Salsman for abusing multiple accounts. Tiptoety talk 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Requests for: permissions (global) — bot status — CheckUser information (local) — deletion (speedy deletions: local | multilingual) — translation — logos — URL blacklisting — username changes (local) — SUL problem solving — new languages — adminship on Meta — comments — interwiki map — an account on WMF wiki — help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information&oldid=3451307"
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Beyond the Web
Print/export
Toolbox