Jump to content

Steward requests/Checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Results: remove
Line 40: Line 40:
::I answered this at my talk, the day it was left, see [[User_talk:Lar#Checkuser_2]]. I should have answered it here as well, I guess, my apologies for any confusion caused. For reference, here is the text of my answer given then:
::I answered this at my talk, the day it was left, see [[User_talk:Lar#Checkuser_2]]. I should have answered it here as well, I guess, my apologies for any confusion caused. For reference, here is the text of my answer given then:
:::''I don't think that's sufficient. I think some actual diffs, not vague descriptions, would be better. Remember that socking is not banned, only using socks to show false consensus or evade bans or blocks. You (or better, someone that is less directly involved) need to show specific behaviour where the alleged IDs are colluding or evading bans. Hope that helps clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)''
:::''I don't think that's sufficient. I think some actual diffs, not vague descriptions, would be better. Remember that socking is not banned, only using socks to show false consensus or evade bans or blocks. You (or better, someone that is less directly involved) need to show specific behaviour where the alleged IDs are colluding or evading bans. Hope that helps clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)''
::I have communicated offline with Yann about this and I expect he'll be clarifying his remarks shortly. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I have communicated offline with Yann about this, see below ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
* Not really adding much, just noting that a better translation would be "It's a fascist attack on/for the face of liberty/freedom" --[[Special:Contributions/71.167.230.205|71.167.230.205]] 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
* Not really adding much, just noting that a better translation would be "It's a fascist attack on/for the face of liberty/freedom" --[[Special:Contributions/71.167.230.205|71.167.230.205]] 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{unrelated}} I corroborate Lar's findings, and I think that no further checks are needed. [[User:Yann|Yann]] 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{unrelated}} I corroborate Lar's findings, and I think that no further checks are needed. [[User:Yann|Yann]] 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:13, 7 January 2008

To request checkuser access, see Requests for permissions.
Shortcut:
RfCU
This page allows you to request checkuser information on Meta or a wiki with no local checkusers. If this is an emergency, please contact a steward on the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel.

Stewards: All requests should be archived when fulfilled.

Steward requests/Checkuser/Indicators

Requests for Meta

When adding new requests for Meta (this wiki), please use the {{checkuser}} template to list the user names in question, which simplifies investigation. For example, "{{checkuser|Jimbo Wales}}" will result in: Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)

Please use headers in the format "username @ meta", such as "Jimbo Wales @ meta".

Jea @ meta

Jea (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
217.31.112.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
clamengh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate)
I suspect that these two users falsified consense in this proposal for closing lmo.wiki. Then, they subscribe words similar used by user:clamengh on linked page (i.e. è una proposta fascista alla faccia della libertà = it's a fascist attack for the freedom). Excuse for my English (again :D ). Thank you. --Leoman3000 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add to the list:

Thank you again, --Remulazz 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

  • Unrelated Unrelated - Jea, clamengh and 217.31.112.66 are not related.
  • Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing - I see no justification for adding 10caart, Belinzona and OlBergomi to this request. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not fishing. I had and have strong suspects they're the same person. Before this earthquake on lmo.wiki, the only community were them. They (and Clamengh) always agree among them, they (and Clamengh) always refused to speak in Italian, they are fans of Catalan language and tried to import it in lmo.wiki (that is not ca.wiki), and so on. One day i saw lmo:User:10caart handling on Clamengh's talk page (he archived old discussions). I think this smells a bit. Can you add them to the list now? Are these arguments enough? Bye, thanks, --81.118.107.34 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Ops--Remulazz 10:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered this at my talk, the day it was left, see User_talk:Lar#Checkuser_2. I should have answered it here as well, I guess, my apologies for any confusion caused. For reference, here is the text of my answer given then:
I don't think that's sufficient. I think some actual diffs, not vague descriptions, would be better. Remember that socking is not banned, only using socks to show false consensus or evade bans or blocks. You (or better, someone that is less directly involved) need to show specific behaviour where the alleged IDs are colluding or evading bans. Hope that helps clarify. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have communicated offline with Yann about this, see below ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for other wikis

When adding new requests, please be sure to specify the wiki on which you want the check to be performed. Note that many projects have a local checkuser procedures, and checkuser information on these wikis should be requested locally; see also Steward handbook.

Please use headers in the format "username @ wiki", such as "billy @ enwikisource".

Please place new requests at the top of this section - thanks

Local checkuser request pages:

Andranikpasha

ru:User:Andranikpasha local CU (note the involvement of User "Hayk" and "Wind")
en:User:Andranikpasha (notice this user page says his name is "Ashot") local CU
simple:User:Andranikpasha
hy:User:Ashot
ro:User:Ashot
fr:User:Ashot
217.118.95.* on en ru fr de hy bg ar tr uk pl meta
195.218.222.149 on ru en hy and ro

The Russian Andranikpasha has been banned due to sock abuse and edit warring at ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Samwel which was raised by ru:User:Hayk. Of interest is that the page User:Hayk is vandalised on a number of wikis by the same IP just prior to them being banned from ruWP.

Evidence to presume the accounts are the same person
  • On Meta, the IP signs this as "Ashot"
  • [1][2]hy IP followed by hy user Ashot 12 mins later, and later by IP 195.218.222.149.
  • On the deleted page s:User:Hayk, it says "Ashot-i hayrenasirakan account" (I cant make out what this is, but it appears to be talking about an account called "Ashot-i", which could be a wikimedia project account name)
  • On bg.WP IP 217.118.95.46 requests a translation of en:Andranik_Ozanian into bg, and signs Andranikpasha. The IP returns days later and signs as Andranikpasha again.
Attacks

After the Russian user was banned, the English Andranikpasha user was created and soon became subject to Arbcom. Recently the parole on English user has been lifted per no incivility. If the user is the same that was banned from another wikimedia project for breaking their rules, I think this should be known to avoid gaming the system by pretending to be a new user and receiving the benefit of the doubt all over again. The English user Andranikpasha has been constantly warned about poor sourcing, edit warring and stonewalling, but the user has also created new articles, so if it is the same user as was banned on the Russian sub-domain, the user appears to be reformed a little.

The IP contributions to enwiki are very similar to those of the English Andranikpasha. By following the interwiki links on the other sub-domains, it appears that those contribs by these IP ranges are also very similar, such as:

As I cant read the diffs, I am limited to concluding that this person using this IP range edits similar topics on en, bg, fr, de, hy, and ru subdomains, and those topics are the same that the the English Andranikpasha concentrates on; I presume the same POV will be found in those diffs. The contribs that are of a similar nature occur before and after the personal attacks on User:Hayk, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the IP contribs are all the same person. Should the 217.118.95.* contribs also be tied to the user Andranikpasha, then the users propensity towards user page vandalism, personal attacks and incivility is quite clear. John Vandenberg 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC), added simple:User:Andranikpasha and hy:User:Ashot, and separated attacks per target John Vandenberg 04:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC), added IP 195.218.222.149 John Vandenberg 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) correlated more diffs between en:Andranikpasha and hy:Ashot John Vandenberg 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added IP 217.118.95.46 signing as Andranikpasha John Vandenberg 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added ro:Ashot John Vandenberg 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) added fr:Ashot John Vandenberg 10:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have run some checks on en:wp and I can make the results of my checks available to any steward or CU with a need to know, contact me offline. I'd prefer not to reveal results just yet till other facets of this investigation are carried forward. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also run some checks on fr:wp. While most of the edits have been made from 217.118.95.0/24 anonymously, they have also used (at least) four accounts and two IPs that you have not mentioned. I can give them to any steward who asks, or here if you want (I believe this is covered by point 5 from checkuser privacy policy). I've also asked the user that our vandal targetted in fr:wp if they know about any other account/IP. Manuel Menal 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following sharing of information between Manuel and myself, and running checks on all the mentioned wikis (which generated a lot of data) I think there is sufficient reason to broadly concur with John's suggested correlations. However some of the linkages are too old for CU data to directly confirm. Specifically, I feel that there is a strong technical correlation between the Andranikpasha ID on many wikis and 217.118.95.* (or 217.118.95.0/24), in addition to the behavioural correlation John has demonstrated. Although there are a few wikis where there are other contributions in this range, this is rare. At least one wiki (fr:wp) has range blocked this IP range already and it may be worth keeping an eye on other wikis as well. I will share this data with CU's or answer questions from admins, as appropriate. This was a fairly large set of wikis to check, it is possible that I have not checked everything I should have yet. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What action would you recommend on this user? --85.96.107.35 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you forgot to log in, perhaps, whoever you are? Much of this is relatively old and there are signs that the user is either trying to turn a new leaf, or at least restrain the most troublesome activity somewhat, although as can be seen on en, they are not willing to acknowledge they are the user, the evidence is compelling (as always, no CU indication is ever a guarantee, it's just a probability estimate). I'd block on behaviour as warranted. For many wikis there are no contributions other than this user in the entire 217.118.95.0/24 range, but for some, there are, so having a local checkuser check, (or a local sysop can ask me for more detail, or both) before rangeblocking seems prudent. But if the behaviour recurs I'd block. I'm not sure at this point with the change in behaviour pattern (for the better) that a range block in advance is called for. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users on sq.wiki

The following discussion is closed: done

sq:User:Šiptari su govna
sq:User:Money343
sq:User:Hapeni
There was a recent vandal attack on this wiki, and the accounts above appear to have been used to vandalize it. To prevent further account creation by this user I'd like to request that the users above be checkuser'd and the IP used to create them temp blocked on sqwiki. Thanks. --Az1568 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These and related users edited from three distinct groups of IP addresses belonging to Canadian ISPs. The lack of geographic distribution, the limited pool, and the ability to switch between them at will suggests web proxies. Blocking 206.45.0.0/16 and 209.202.0.0/16 was effective in stopping the disruptive activity. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:51:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sidheeq and Samad in ml.wiki

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi, I would like to request for a checkuser on the two users, Sidheeq and Samad. both has voted on the same voting, and both seems to follow the same pattern of acts. We would like to determine if they are socks Thanks.--Jyothis 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication from a user check that they're the same person, although this does not prove they are not. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:41:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some users @ lmo.wiki

The following discussion is closed: done

I ask a CU for fivesixseven lmo.wiki users: Clamengh, 10caart, Rossi, Pacipaciana, Vladimir, Engels, Padaniandebèrghem.

Two of these users (10caart and Clamengh) are historical users of lmo.wiki, those who took lmo.wiki to the chaos we are trying to solve now following to the discussion here. 10caart has already voted against everyone. Clamengh decided to disappear officially.

Rossi, Vladimir and Pacipaciana are three absolute newcomers that started voting against every candidate to lmo.wiki adminship. I suspect that there they are having a strong influence on the consensus. Every day a new unknown user comes, and votes against everyone.

Many thanks, --Remulazz 10:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes ago a new user (Engels) appeared. Can I add him/her to the list? --Remulazz 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another new entry: Padaniandebèrghem. --Remulazz 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On it. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padaniandebèrghem = Pacipaciana, all other are unrelated, though I find it likely that the new users may be meatpuppets. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Padaniandebèrghem and even if is not difficult to understand that pacipaciana is a bergamasch name, I'm not pacipaciana! if you check my Ip you can see that I write from university of bergamo with pubblic computer for student, every day a lot of students use these computers.Ok? I'm newcomer becouse I has received a mail asking support for lombard wiki aganist proposal of closure. I have speoke about this proposal with a lot friends, in university too, and probably pacipaciana study with me. BUT IF YOU WANT I CAN SEND MY NUMBER OF IDENTY CARD, MY REAL NAME AND MY SURNAME and looking for pacipaciana so I will demostrate we are not the same person. --Padaniandebèrghem 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyway the problem is always Remulazz ... noboy is ok if has voted against him!this is a very good democracy!!!!!!!--Padaniandebèrghem 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tam @ es.wikiquote

The following discussion is closed: done

I suspect es:q:user:Tam is a new sockpuppet account of the same person who recently uses the username es:q:user:Behth (Behth has been identified as a sockpuppet account both in es Wikipedia and Wikiquote). This Tam account has been used in periods when Behth is blocked. One of his few comments mispells a verb (hallan creado) in a way already seen in other of Behth's accounts. --Javierm 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tam's software profile and IP address range is identical to Aclaremos el desbloqueo de Ja-sídh, and very similar to Aclaración de parte de Ja-sídh (differences consistent with routine updates). All three have very similar software profiles to Behth, but operate from a different IP address range.
It's certainly possible that they are the same person, but this is not conclusive proof. You must combine the above information with other evidence in making a judgment. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:38:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Kouluhai @ fiwikinews

The following discussion is closed: done

Recently started fiwikinews http://fi.wikinews.org have problem that someone is registering known nicks from fiwiki claiming to be same user as in fiwiki (for example: n:fi:Käyttäjä:Ilaiho, n:fi:Käyttäjä:Iirolaiho and n:fi:Käyttäjä:QWerk). Because of this I'm requesting Checkuser to check is n:fi:Käyttäjä:Kouluhai same person as Ilaiho, Iirolaiho and QWerk (and possible some others also). Kouluhai was active user in fiwiki last year, but recently no one have heard nothing about this user, so it is very suspicious that this user would activate just for fiwikinews. Thank you in advance, br --Agony 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also n:fi:Käyttäjä:Kallerna(user confirmed), n:fi:Käyttäjä:Jaakonam and n:fi:Käyttäjä:Tero Vilkesalo (user confirmed) seems to be fake accounts. --Agony 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And more: n:fi:Käyttäjä:MikkoM (already blocked) was shown as fake. Fiwiki admins and bureaucrats user names seem to be very popular. --Agony 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that faker have succeed IP change (perhaps open proxy?): After n:fi:MikkoM blocked, http://fi.wikinews.org/wiki/Toiminnot:Muokkausestot #9 blocked IP automaticly but just few minutes ago this thing continued under different IP with username n:fi:Linnea (autoblock #11 affected this one). --Agony 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Here's the results:
Iirolaiho = Ilaiho
QWerk = Kompak
Kouluhai = MikkoM
Linnea = Tbone

drini [es:] [commons:] 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there are 4 different persons? That was a surprise. --AtteL 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was any one of these from open proxy? If yes, can you provide the IP address of proxy (since it do not reveal anything especial about user and therefore not breaking any CU rules)? --Agony 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aparamoorthi@ml.wikipedia.org

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi, I need a checkuser to be done on ml:User:Aparamoorthi and see whose sock is this. Please help. Thanks, --Jyothis 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a reason as why you suspect Aparamoorthi to be a sock. --Cspurrier 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The User was created while a couple of heated discussions were on. the user contributions are only in those discussions and the account was used only to abuse the fellow wikipedians. We suspect that this is a sock of the users I requested for checkuser information earlier. Thanks.--Jyothis 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are not "identical" IPs, the class is the same from Drini results. --M/ 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, M7, We appreciate it. --24.126.65.193 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, its me. --Jyothis 16:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood & Honour Scandinavia@nn.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: done

I request a checkuser on some, or all, of these users nn:Blood & Honour Scandinavia, nn:Killing Joke, nn:Petterhenriksen, nn:Ordo Ad Chao, nn:Coil, nn:Borer'n, nn:Necrofog, nn:NatRew, nn:Padima, nn:The Great Kat. (These are accounts that have been blocked the last 45 days.) These are obvious sockpuppet accounts of a longtime vandal/troll persona: Nazi/punk theme account names and articles. Creates a new user account, goes directly to the user talk page of some sysop and leaves an uncivil remark about this sysop, and/or puts Sieg Heil or links to Norwegian nazi group Vigrid in articles, etc. I'd like to know if there is an IP in common for some of these accounts, to be able to block it.

Thanks. --Jorunn 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. They appear to be using proxies on multiple free web hosts. You can range-block the following IP addresses to cover those they have used so far. No legitimate users have edited from these ranges in the last month.
CIDR range Addresses affected Whois
66.90.64.0/18 66.90.[64–127].* (16,384) FDC Servers.net, LLC
67.159.0.0/18 67.159.[0–63].* (16,384) FDC Servers.net, LLC
67.192.0.0/17 67.192.[0–127].* (32,768) Rackspace.com, Ltd.
87.229.26.0/24 87.229.26.* (256) Deninet serverhosting
208.75.148.0/22 208.75.[148–151].* (1,024) Cogswell Enterprises Inc.
208.110.192.0/19 208.110.[192–223].* (8,192) Time Warner Cable Houston
208.113.128.0/17 208.113.[128–255].* (32,768) New Dream Network, LLC
209.135.128.0/19 209.135.[128–159].* (8,192) InLink Communications Company
209.190.0.0/17 209.190.[0–127].* (32,768) Columbus Network Access Point, Inc.
—{admin} Pathoschild 00:20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

JM-JM, Marronez, Marronez Jr. @ptwiki

The following discussion is closed: done

I request a checkuser on users pt:Usuário:JM-JM, pt:Usuário:Marronez and pt:Usuário:Marronez Jr.. The suspect accounts have been created in near dates and usually votes in the same matter with a difference of a few minutes, as you see below:

others...

Thanks in advance. - Al Lemos 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. These accounts are almost certainly run by the same person. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:50:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Same person on different wikis

The following discussion is closed: done

Request written in French: guillom or Darkoneko should understand what I am requesting smiley

Dans les quatre cas, le fâcheux utilise le style et la manière du vandale Club-Internet (« gros naze »), mais il paraît plus probable qu'il soit un pénible belge hélas bien connu. Quoi qu'il en soit, je demande :

  • que les quatres comptes soient bloqués indéfiniment ;
  • que leurs adresses IP soient relevées par le steward agissant temporairement comme CU ;
  • qu'il soit vérifié, sur chacun de ces comptes, que l'adresse IP correspondante n'a pas servi à créer un autre sockpuppet ;
  • que les quatre adresses IP (ou moins s'il y en a moins en réalité) soient communiquées aux titulaires du CU sur wp-FR, pour parfaire (si nécessaire), la lutte contre le pénible belge soupçonné : en recourant à cette méthode voici quelques mois sur wp-KAB, guillom avait ainsi permis de neutraliser, sur wp-FR une douzaine de faux-nez d'un autre pénible de longue durée.

Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J'oubliais la même chose avec ces trois comptes (déjà bloqués) sur des projets francophones (hors Wikipédia) :

Cette fois, ça doit être bon smiley (en attendant, hélas, les suivants...) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je m'en occupe / Doing it now. guillom 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai bloqué les comptes non encore bloqués. Toutes les IP appartiennent au bloc 87.65.128.0 - 87.65.255.255 attribué à Skynet / Belgacom. C'est Scolas, que j'ai retrouvé sur fr.wp sous l'identité d'Insiraf, maintenant bloqué indéfiniment. guillom 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle fournée (7 octobre) :

si les résultats ne donnent que 85.27.7.9, l'IP a déjà été transmise aux CU de wp-FR.

Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) + 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benvenutto@miwiki et ‏خنزير@vewiki‎ semble être les mêmes, mais 85.27.7.9@vewiki opère à partir d'un autre fournisseur et un système différent. Je peut transférer les résultats au vérificateurs du frwiki en privée sur demande.
Translation: "Benvenutto@miwiki and ‏خنزير@vewiki‎ seem to be the same person, but 85.27.7.9@vewiki operates from a different Internet service provider and with a different software profile. I can transfer my checkuser results to the frwiki checkusers privately on request."
—{admin} Pathoschild 02:04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

qwerty @ ko.wikipedia & betalph @ko.wikidictionary

The following discussion is closed: done

It differs from the user I am falsely accused in the multi-korean uncyclopedia flocked account has been blocked. As a school administrator I probably heard, but based on my ip that includes non-english wikipedia editing ip. Ip was also trying to look up to me and are extremely different. Checkusing please.Kverti 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you want us to check if qwerty@kowiki and betalph@kowiktionary are used by different people, or the same person. Is this correct? —{admin} Pathoschild 00:13:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
yes.Kverti 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inconclusive. Betalph@kowiktionary operates from a different IP address range owned by the same Internet service provider as Hanguler@kowiki, who also edited from a different IP address that is shared by qwerty@kowiki. Hanguler@kowiki and qwerty@kowiki are both blocked and have identical software profiles, although the profiles are too generic to be indicative. So, checkuser data shows that the accounts may be used by the same person, but there's no conclusive evidence either way. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:32:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are not many Internet companies in Korea.(i am betalph)Multicode 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Korea have dynamic IPs? Or only static IPs? --King Edmund of the Woods 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

مولیر@fa.wikipedia (sockpuppet or victim of sysop power abuse, by fa:user:حسام?)

The following discussion is closed: unnecessary

fa:user:مولیر has been banned by fa:user:حسام, yesterday. fa:user:حسام claims that this user is a sockpuppet, created for edit war. But, fa:user:حسام hasn't said who the original acount is. Also, he hasn't presented any proof or justification for his claims. I want to know if fa:user:مولیر is really a sockpuppet, or this incident is just another incident of power abuse, by fa:user:حسام (he has along history of abuse of power and banning active users without any reasonable justification).

After being banned (indefinitely, without any proof of wrongdoing) fa:user:مولیر has made other acounts (fa:user:مولیر ۲ and fa:user:Molière) to ask about the reason of the indefinite block. Instead of answering his/her legitimate question, the new acounts are banned by fa:user:حسام and fa:user:ظهیری, indefinitely.


I should also mention that while there has been several banning incident in Persian Wikipedia, based on unproven sockpuppetry claims, the admins of fawiki didn't do anything when one of them (fa:user:ظهیری) was proven to be guilty of sockpuppetry (using sockpuppet fa:user:fbyk). Alefbe 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alefbe, you previously made this claim on 5 Dec too. For your information, checkuser cannot prove (with 100% certainity) if an account is a sockpuppet or not). As far as I know, there are still some people who share the same computer (hence similar checkuser results) with fa:user:ظهیری. So, please try to respect the decision made by the community at that time (that we cannot be sure ظهیری has a sockpuppet) instead of repeating what you interpreted from it.
Made this claim in 5 December?! Where? I'm talking about something which has happened in Dec 8-9. It seems that you have not read my comment. About fa:user:ظهیری and fa:user:fbyk, the checkusers had mentioned that these two have used the same IP and the same user agent, and you know that the fa:user:fbyk has supported fa:user:ظهیری in his edits. What else do you need to know? I mentioned this example to show the double standard in Persian wikipedia. About fa:user:ظهیری, having all this evidences, you insist that nothing is known for sure. But, in several other cases, usernames are blocked indefinitely (claimed to be sockpuppet), without any proof or even weak evidence. I don't remember your objection to those unjust blocks. Alefbe 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To stewrds: It is perhaps a good idea to ask some other credible users of wikis with such inflammated communities as Fa WP, to see if each checkuser request is really mandatory to be performed. Huji 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of cource this is not the right place to deal with the admin power abuse in Persian Wikipedia (its place is RFC). Here, I'm only asking if Hessam's claims (fa:user:حسام) about fa:user:مولیر have any real justification or not. My guess is that it is baseless. Alefbe 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you really think this is not the correct place to talk about what you call "admin power abuse in Persian Wikipedia", try not to describe it in the first place. Huji 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before discussing Hessam's power abuse in its right place, I prefer to give him the benefit of doubt and assume that he may asked the checkusers before blocking fa:user:مولیر (though it's unlikely). My question is about that. So, before rushing to defend user:Hessam, read my question more carefully. About mentioning the background of the problem, I think it should be mentioned why I'm asking this question from chekusers. Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i also support huji's word. there is some great evidence of sockpuppetry in fawiki and i should say fa:user:حسام's blocking is surely acceptable.--Mardetanha 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fa:user:مولیر seems to be familiar with wikipedia and may have been active in other wikipedias before. It may be also sockpuppet of another Persian Wikipedia user. However, being sockpuppet itslef is not forbidden in Wikipedia. Using sockpuppets for edit war or evadind block is forbidden. fa:user:مولیر is blocked, claimed to be a sockpuppet for edit-war in fa:خلفای راشدین. If it's true, user:Hessam should show evidence that fa:user:مولیر is sockpuppet of one of those who have edited that page recently. user:Hessam hasn't shown any evidence and here I ask the checkusers whether there is an evidence. Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing the question to avoid irrelevant discussions

fa:user:حسام has blocked fa:user:مولیر, indefinitely, claiming that it's a sockpuppet created to edit-war in fa:خلفای راشدین. My question is:

1-Has fa:user:حسام done the proper procedure before blocking fa:user:مولیر, indefinitely? Has he asked the checkusers whether fa:user:مولیر is really a sockpuppet of one of recent contributors of that page? If yes, where is it archived?

2-If fa:user:حسام hasn't asked yet, is fa:user:مولیر really a sockpuppet of one of recent contributors of that page? Is there any evidence that fa:user:مولیر is an abusive sokpuppet? Alefbe 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask Alefbe, I think most of you in the Persian Wikipedia are Iranians right? Do you know whether Iranians use only static IPs or dynamic IPs, or both? --King Edmund of the Woods 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both. I think most of those who connect from universities, dorms, ... have static IPs. But those who use home internet service mostly have dynamic IPs. Alefbe 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the contributions of the blocked user show, this user *was* created to editwar. So it isn't necessary to make a CU request, the blocking seems to be justified either way. But I'm open for other arguments on this. --Thogo (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Unnecessary, as Thogo said it right, no justification of doing a checkuser with the given arguments, the archives You can finde here (a link to them is at the top of this page). Please do not open multiple discussions for one issue, thanks for Your understanding. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pere_prlpz@ca.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: done

I have been accused of having several sockpuppet users and I need a checkuser to check it. Accusations are in ca:Viquipèdia:La_taverna/Arxius/Polítiques/Recent#Cas_Villalonga. It would be very useful to check if there is a sockpuppet of me among users ca:User:Evolució, ca:User:Geo, ca:User:Artista, ca:User:Guillem d'Occam and anonimous users 193.152.188.133 and 88.19.142.42, but it is also usefull to chek if any other user may be my sockpuppet.

If necessary, I give permission to make public the IP's I've been using.

If you need to check that ca:User:Pere prlpz and m:user:Pere prlpz belong to the same person (me), you can see a link in both userpages.--Pere prlpz 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, ca:User:Pere prlpz is not related to any of the mentioned IPs or accounts or other accounts.
The accounts ca:User:Evolució, ca:User:Geo, ca:User:Cronos, ca:User:Artista, seem to be related (similar IPs and software profile).
ca:User:Guillem d'Occam not.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, birdy.--Pere prlpz 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Aira @ tlwikipedia

The following discussion is closed: done

This is a reaction for the numerous requests and suspicions here in the Tagalog Wikipedia about the activities of

  1. tl:User:Wikiboost
  2. tl:User:Regenerate
  3. tl:User:Booster Gold
  4. tl:User:Auto007

. It has been suspected by most editors that those four are the same user and using bot functions. In Wikiboost's talk page, he directly denied any bot functions being done with his account. And according to tl:User:Sky Harbor, the remaining three also denied so. They all came this September 2007. They create articles of almost the same form. And has been most responsible to the exponential growth of the Tagalog Wikipedia from about 7,000 - September to 15,000 this January. Please be so kind to check if those users are operated by the same person or not.

And an extra question too, would it be any violation or ground for their blocking if it has been proven that they are bots, since they directly denied of so?

They create articles of one sentence like this: "X is a politician in the Philippines." With "X" only changing with the person's name. And if you would notice in their contributions, they create articles at lightning speeds, having 2 to 5 a minute. Which is quite impossible even if you got an incredibly fast internet connexion, and just do copy and pasting. Unless they are bots. There are even days when the whole recent changes page are crammed with their contributions.

Thanks a lot! -- Felipe Aira 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After my first CheckUser check, that turned out to be quite arduous, here are the results:
  • The user tl:User:Regenerate hasn't made any contributions for a long time, so I cannot say anything about him/her
  • It is inconclusive whether tl:User:Wikiboost is a sockpuppet of tl:User:Booster gold or vice versa
  • I can make no connections between the users tl:User:Auto007 and the others
  • I found some other (minor?) sockpuppets on the wiki among the users who where under the CheckUser check. If you want, I can publish the usernames and connections (which may shed some light on the case if those users are indeed somehow connected to the whole thing)
Thanks --filip ⁂ 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would most appreciate that! -- Felipe Aira 13:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The findings are as follows:
I hope this somewhat helps. --filip ⁂ 13:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is unbelievable! Exec8 and Emir214 are one of our best editors! -- Felipe Aira 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even you yourself should be aware that neither Emir214 or Exec8 are bots in the very first place! The others I'm not so sure of. --Sky Harbor 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CheckUser tool cannot tell if a user is a bot. This checkuser request was fulfilled because there were reasons to believe that these 4 users are sockpuppets of one another. Whether a user is editing via a script should be determined by other means. --filip ⁂ 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser&oldid=823924"