Steward requests/Checkuser

Edit links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 15 July 2007 (→‎Requests for Meta: Shambaitatmeta @ Meta). It may differ significantly from the current version.
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-stewards IRC channel.

Stewards: All requests should be archived when fulfilled.

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".

Shambaitatmeta @ Meta

Shambaitatmeta (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) - my pages across wiki were under attack quite a bit yesterday - this looks like another "friend" I've made. Given the similarity in names it might link with a CU check I just made on en Books who had me as a target too, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

En.dmcdevit @ Meta

En.dmcdevit (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) - vandal account, given the impersonation of dmc if might be someone who has a "history" somewhere - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Already blocked. Only using one IP. Other recent user on the IP Mbajangle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) also a vandalism only account. Likely match but not definite. Blocked other user as well, the IP already blocked (by you?... no, .anaconda). No activity found on Commons. Perhaps you can check en:books, Herby, and ask (oh the irony) Dmcdevit to check en:wp?++Lar: t/c 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy on en wp - gone blocking! Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smileupperauto @ Meta

Smileupperauto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • CentralAuth • AllContribs • checkuser • investigate) - vandal account, probably a history somewhere, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Seems garden variety at meta, nothing untoward found (but he does like forward slashes!). Results sent to Herby for further investigation, available to other CU's on request. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 14 July 2007 (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.

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

Local checkuser request pages:


User:Zarbon returns again... and now from Merseyside! @ en Wikiquote

q:User:Zarbon returns again... and now from Merseyside! returning sockpuppet and indef blocked. However given that this is part of a series and looking at the pleasant message left for me I'd like this checked. Drini may even want to do it! Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further pleasant comments on my talk page suggest that q:User:Zarbon returning again... from Ainsdale!!! will require checking too - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a stack more - check block/creation logs for "Zarbon *" - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Effeietsanders 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - sorry, can't find anything usefull. Effeietsanders 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Выкинем пидарасов из Википедии! @ enwiki and ruwiki

Please checkuser the (indefinitely blocked for "too long a username") en:wikipedia:User:Выкинем пидарасов из Википедии! with the provocative Russian username which reads as "fags, go away from Wikipedia!". This user vandalised my English user page: [1], and the style in which he did this, closely resembles some known ru.wikipedia vandals and users. So I ask for info, if there is any connection to any user in ru.wikipedia or not. It also may be an open proxy, but generally our known ru.wikipedia homophobes are less worrying about being caught in en.wikipedia (see for example the case of Nikolay Kolpakov, which was caught on checkuser), and less frequently use open proxies on en.wikipedia than on ru.wikipedia, so the probability to find something - exists :-) Rombik 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done enwiki{Выкинем пидарасов из Википедии! (blocked)} shares an IP address and software profile with ruwiki{Сожжение Гомобеккера (blocked), Андрюшка Аналыхофф (blocked — Kalan 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)), and 195.161.40.67}. Note that this does not prove a direct link; it is possible they are simply editing from the same school or workplace computer network.[reply]
The IP address does not seem to be an open proxy. There are a number of other users using different addresses on the same range, including some that appear to be legitimate users; please list specific names you suspect are related for further details. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:28:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Note, this is technically a cross wiki request, someone reading fast (under the original header, which I changed) might have rejected it since enwiki has a local CU process... WP:RFCU... ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay1980 @ simplewiki

Please check if User:Lindsay1980 and User:S-man and User:71.231.130.56 are of the same IP. They are persistent trolls which masquerade as young people. Cheers.--Tdxiang 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please chekc if Jessicagirl is a sockpuppet too. Thanks.--Tdxiang 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Choosnink(blocked), Jessicagirl, JustJacklen(blocked), and Lindsay1980(blocked) share the same IP address and software profiles. S-man does not seem to be related to the other users. 71.231.130.56's checkuser data has expired, but it is an IP address in a different range owned by the same Internet service provider the aforementioned edited from, though none of the other users edited from that range in the last month.
This does not prove a direct link by itself; they may simply edit from the same school or workplace computer network. These checkuser results should only be used to confirm other evidence, such as similar behaviour. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Akan Wikibooks - new Willy on Wheels/ offensive username spree

This is my block log from Akan Wikibooks - where I'm ak:b:User:SunStar Net. A spree of offensive user-name creation happened today, as seen below:

  1. 17:34, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:Willy shirty (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page)
  2. 17:33, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:My penis is a penis with wings (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  3. 17:31, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:A tangled penis (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  4. 17:30, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:I'VE GOT 40 TONS OF BOMBS FOR YOU (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  5. 17:25, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:J0mbo W0les (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  6. 17:24, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:Willy's willys willy on willywheels on wax (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  7. 17:23, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:Willy riding on motorbike wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
  8. 17:21, 7 July 2007 SunStar Net (Talk | contribs) blocked "ak:b:User:WILLY ON WHEELS ON wheels FUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)

taken from ak:b:Special:Logs/block

Please block the underlying IP, and if it is blocked, use the local checkuser block template in the block summary. --WiganRunnerEu 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done drini [es:] [commons:] 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki checkuser info on en:wikipedia:User:Francisco_Tevez and es:wikipedia:Usuario:Francisco_Tevez

Following confirmation that these two accounts are both en:wikipedia:User:Molag Bal socks, I'm wondering if it would be possible to check for any other Molag Bal socks hiding on other WMF wikis. His latest method would appear to involve creating a simple user page (which I was told, was nothing more than a machine conversion) on a foreign language wiki, making a few edits, before returning to enwiki with a more convincing cover story, as was the case this time.

If possible, could all socks on foreign wikis be blocked and enwiki provided a list of socks to look out for and block.

Nick (Heligoland) 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course they match to the same user. However, no other user was found on eswiki. It had a hundred or so ips on enwiki, andmany socks, but pretty much everything was already blocked. drini [es:] [commons:] 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand: Done Effeietsanders 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siliamaav@fiwiki(quote|books|source)

There has been a vandalism spree spanning three Finnish wikis. The accounts concerned are:

Jhs has already Checkusered the Wikibooks accounts. Please check the rest and block them as necessary. Thanks, Tangotango 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done drini [es:] [commons:] 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Blitz @ en Wikiquote

Vandalism is the same pattern as Flannigan_Hittagan below. It seems likely to me that there is either a new open proxy that this has come from or that the one found previously remains unblocked (now blocked tho). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done drini [es:] [commons:] 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drini - another Open proxy, tends to be so --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sce03173 @ kowiki

There are suspicious accounts that is regarded as a blocked user's sock puppets in Korean Wikipedia again. Please check the underlying IP addresses of them.

-- JongGuk 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Effeietsanders 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done It is very likely that the three users are working on the same computer or company (school) network. Effeietsanders 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahonc @ ukwiki

Please check:

and

It is more likely first three belong to one person. Other one has evil character and last one has old gramatic style, may be have the same IP address. All these accounts were involved in similar edits made at same articles. Accounts actively use to vote for renaming, deleting pages, for new rules on wikipedia and to elect administrators. Most of them have talks only with Ahonk what is unusual for wikipedia, and these talks are very friendly talks out stood his usual style.--Xkbz 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated. MaxSem 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give more details?--Xkbz 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He can't say our IP-addresses (it is personal information).
Чекюзеры не могут разглашать персональных данных.--Ahonc 22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Умышленное искажение имени участника является личным оскорблением.--Ahonc 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for second opinion, but from western country. --Xkbz 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm MaxSem finding. Yann 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there proxy IP's were used for some accounts?--Xkbz 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they say unrelated, they are probably unrelated. It is not allowed per privacy policy to give more information as stictly needed. Done Effeietsanders 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challiyan @ mlwiki

Please check the following users in malayalam wikipedia. They seems to be sockpuppet accounts of ml:user:challiyan

All the four users were voted in this page.

regards --Vssun 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challiyan and Shinysajan have the same user agent string (although Challiyan used Opera too) and were on one IP on overlapping time spans. They also shared other IPs, but they used them between 2-3 weeks apart. There was one IP that Challiyan, Shinysajan, and Devanshi all shared on overlapping times. Challiyan and Shinysajan had the same user agent string. Devanshi's was almost the same, except for using MSIE 7.0 and having additional information in his user agent string.
Devanshi and Mangoskin shared an IP, Devanshi using it 18 minutes after Mangoskin. They also had the same user agent string, the same one I mentioned above.
All the IPs these three users shared appear to be dynamic, but I don't know how dynamic.
On an unrelated note, a sysop should probably delete this image, uploaded by Challiyan under a false license. It is fair use, not creative commons.--Shanel 04:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License has been fixed--Vssun 05:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check one more user name ml:user:Aruna against the above four accounts

with thanks and regards --Vssun 05:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if there was an overlapping of times does that mean those are socks or people using different accounts from proxy servers. deos that in any way mean that challiyan has created all the above accounts. to me it feels like they are all using proxy servers if it the times are overlapping.. ml:user:challiyan

Your questions don't make sense. Either you are not aware of what proxy servers are or you are merely creating a smokescreen. The checkuser has been able to establish that all the given users shared an IP with Challiyan at some time or other, which means that all the accounts are related. The checkuser who are not familiar with the dynamic nature of Indian IPs would like somebody more technically proficient to look at the case. The checkuser has not given any room to doubt the presence of proxy servers. Overlapping can happen if you use two accounts contemporaneously on two browsers. Actually, it is clear that you use more than browser. The IP Challiyan uses is that of Asianet ISP (an ISP in India). The IPs of this ISP change with each connection, apparently. The contributions of the said user under IP edits establish this clearly. 89.33.112.6 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very technically proficient, so I tend to refrain from interpreting the results of a checkuser. If you'd like I'll get another steward to take this request.--Shanel 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do the same --Vssun 06:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apperently Done, interpretation wanted. Effeietsanders 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets @ viwiki

Please check the following users:

They are suspected of sockpuppetry. These users have each been blocked on different occasions, some of them frequently. They have been blocked mostly for personal attacks against other users and otherwise disrupting discussions going on at various article talk pages.

This list was compiled using information from three administrators at the Vietnamese Wikipedia: Vương Ngân Hà (via private e-mail), Apple (e-mail), and Thaisk (at the admin noticeboard). I've asked them to supplement this request with more specific information.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there an impotant reason for the ckeck (like a vote)? They've been blocked and identified as sockpuppets, so what else is needed? drini [es:] [commons:] 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost a month. Are we getting the supplemental info? drini [es:] [commons:] 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment: Not done Effeietsanders 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user @ bgwiki

Hello! At the Bulgarian Wikipedia there is a community decision to ban a user and his sockpuppets (Jimbo and the Board were informed), and there is a reasonable doubt that the user is creating many new sockpuppets as well as editing via open proxies, violating the official Wikimedia policy.

I would like to request a checkuser on the IP-addresses by the following usernames:

You may discover other, additional accounts, created recently by the same person at the same time.

This banned person is a very experienced computer specialist and for him it is easy to bypass any blocks by using an open proxy, so it is probable that all accounts have different IP addresses.

What we would ask to be checked, please, in addidion to the normal "checkuser" is if, actually, these IP addresses are proxies. The easiest to check this is by doing a Google search like this one: "201.6.121.46" Proxy which finds the IP address in many public online catalogs. Thanks a lot. (My name is Petko Yotov, wikipedian since 2003, you may also contact me privately by e-mail). --5ko 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be grateful for having this request processed. Thank you in advance, Spiritia (sysop on BG Wikipedia) 07:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Woof, that was a tough investigation. Its results are the following:

  • A motherlode of socks: ИнжИнера=Енциклопедист=Спириций=Спиритий=Mozart=Stoymenov=Ролерчо=Berzelius=Кънчо Путкодеров=М.Пищова=Пан Кмичиц=Негър=Николай Спасов=Камионетчо=Марионетчо=IvayloValentinov=Колю Спасов=Горския=Vrmenen=Фургончо=Камазчо=Фолцфагенчо=Pety Stoeva=Сенегалец=Селския=Mi4urin=Kabeljiqta=Николай Спасов=К Спасов=Kilsat
  • No evidence: Грундигчо Камиона
  • Proxies need to be blocked:
  • 201.6.115.7
  • 202.41.167.246
  • 202.21.176.50
  • 202.41.167.246
  • 220.217.50.197
  • 80.58.205.43
  • 62.39.176.6
  • 193.251.181.135
  • 216.129.98.144
  • 200.238.102.162
  • 125.248.152.26
  • 125.136.136.78
  • 206.222.198.98
  • 69.182.47.102
  • 193.64.251.245
  • 12.180.115.15

I will keep myself this permission for a while, I have more IPs to investigate thoroughly. MaxSem 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your research. --5ko 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for helping us with that mess. I would only explicitly ask you to check whose sockpupet is bg:User:Пикапчо as it made only two edits but very offending and they serverd as a launch for the whole campaign. --Петър Петров 12:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I found him immediately, but forgot to include him into my first report. He is definitely Николай Спасов, and therefore ИнжИнера too. MaxSem 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Николай Спасов" is listed twice, maybe that's the reason :) And thanks for support. --Петър Петров 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add something: I have some suspicions that there may be two swarms of puppets - one by ИнжИнера and one by someone trying to force a ban on ИнжИнера. The second group include "Николай Спасов" and definitely "Пикапчо". The banned user has many enemies and was always playing on the gray border, for years, just close enough to avoid the ban. Maybe someone "helped" him this time. Just check that there is certain evidence that ИнжИнера=Николай Спасов. --Петър Петров 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small chance of doubt, as both ИнжИнера and Спасов upgraded their browsers during the checked periond, but most likely it's the same person. MaxSem 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go paranoid any further and I will accept your checkuser skills as sufficient enough. Allow me to thank you one more time for what you have done for bg wikipedia, for the community content and the ИнжИнера case. Drop me a note if you ever come in Bulgaria, the beer is from me :) --Петър Петров 16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Max, thank you for all your efforts. I'd only ask you to explicitly confirm or reject bg:User:Магистъра? Regards, Spiritia 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritia, the banned user Injinera stated that Магистъра is himself while asking one of his supporters to help him. These edits are done after the ban was voted and the account should be blocked on sight. --5ko 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apperently Done - Effeietsanders 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet @ nowiki

Please check:

There are reports that these two accounts belong to one person. Hando 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a bureaucrat at no.wikipedia.org I will very strongly protest against use of checkuser against any user which has not done anything wrong, and I will if necessary complain against such use. Jeblad 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Can you explain the reason for asking these accounts to be checked ? Did one do something inappropriate ? Anthere 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know that until we have the results of CheckUser, will we. There are however strong indications of sockpuppetry, and in order to restore confidence in the adminship at nowiki, we need a definite answer. Jeblad is biased in this matter and in any case cannot be allowed to dictate who shall be subject to CheckUser or not. The only way for nowiki to move forward is to have an unequivocal answer as to whether the adminship is breaking the rules or not. 88.91.101.126 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no complaints at no.wp. If a checkuser should be run against an ordinary user and an admin without any discussion at the involved community it would be highly unusual. If Hando has any complaint he or she should first go to the involved community and open a discussion there, with complaints about what they have done, and why Hando believe a checkuser is the proper action. As a sidenote, there are no policy at no.wp against multiple user accounts, the only thing to my knowledge are you are not allowed to vote from multiple accounts and and you should not hold admin rights for more than one account. The user «C» has rejected any proposals to run for adminship. As I see it, this is a blatant attempt of outing an user at no.wp without any real reason. Jeblad 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Jeblad very well knows, there is widespread dismay among nowiki users about how the adminship is operating. Noorse is part of the adminship, and appears to be breaking the very rules she is supposed to enforce. CheckUser is not about "outing" users, rather it is about revealing sockpuppetry and rulebreaking. The CheckUser service protects the privacy of users and is not used in a punitive way.

Rulebreaking is especially serious when it is committed by administrators. Instead of trying to block a CheckUser to protect his friend, Jeblad should support it to make it clear once and for all whether "C" is a sockpuppet, and thus play a part in moving the nowiki community forward. By protesting against this routine procedure, Jeblad is instead adding to the community's disgruntlement and acknowledging that there is truth to the allegations of sockpuppetry by his friend.

Now, I repeat the request for an unbias steward to run a CheckUser - in accordance with the standard privacy policy - on the following suspected sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet:

Thanks for your help. 88.91.111.158 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state clearly:
    • On what the suspicions are based, there has to be a serious suspicion, and I have not yet seen good reason for that.
    • Why the sockpuppetry was illegal, i.e. where they participated in the same discussion, voted both, pretended that there was more support then there actually is etc.
Then we can truely consider the request. Thanks, Effeietsanders 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicions are based on contrib history, wording and language, and issue involvement.
Both "Noorse" and the alleged sockpuppet "C" have participated in the same discussions, the latest probably being no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Valg av administratorer?, a highly controversial debate regarding the adminship.
Regards, 88.91.111.158 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has nothing to do with sockpuppetry at all, and is not what I will call "a highly controversial debate regarding the adminship". The debate resolves around one user which posts a note whereby he claims admins at no.wp is "incompetent". After the user starts attacking various admins «C» asks him to stop. 77.106.148.77 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Noorse has now been elected to the board of Wikimedia Norway. It is therefore now more vital than ever that we get a definite answer as to whether these two accounts are related. Sockpuppetry is even more serious now that the user fills an official position on the board of a local chapter With reference to the above-mentioned grounds and other information, I ask that you please carry out the CU and report whether the two accounts are related. 88.91.109.204 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous! I'm a user at no.wikipedia too, and I agree with Jeblad. Noorse has done nothing wrong, and she has not done anything that would make her a sock puppeteer suspect. Please don't carry out this CU, we both know what the outcome is going to be. — H92 (t · c · no) 09:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look in the logs and contribs, it looks like User:Hando was created only for this purpose. This checkuser request is the only contribution this user has made, a few minutes after (s)he registered. We've had a period of time where there has been several sock-accounts insulting and making personal attacks against administrators, and other active users, on the Norwegian Wikipedia, it looks like this CU-request is the same, an attempt of outing an administrator and an active user at the Norwegisn Wikipedia. Let me also quote something; Anthere asks the requester: "Can you explain the reason for asking these accounts to be checked ? Did one do something inappropriate ?" and an IP-address answers "We won't know that until we have the results of CheckUser, will we.". It's clear that there won't be any checkuser without a proper reason. — H92 (t · c · no) 10:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in trying to hold back the CheckUser. There won't be any way of restoring confidence in the adminship at nowiki until we have CU confirmation of sockpuppetry. As mentioned above, CU is not used to "out" users, it is used to reveal sockpuppetry. The privacy of users is protected. 88.91.102.243 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not, and apperenlty other stewards aren't either, convnced of the need of this CU-request. So: Not done Effeietsanders 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request a second opinion as Effeiets is Dutch and probably a friend of Noorse. As to the evidence and need of this CU, I refer to the information stated above concerning contrib history, wording and language, and issue involvement; and participation in controversial discussions using the two accounts. 88.91.111.182 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already three opinions. Jeblad 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on... "Effeietsanders is Dutch so probably a friend of Noorse?" What's next: asking for a checkuser who lives - at least - in an other continent? Your insinuations are plain ridiculous... Dolledre 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user "Hando" demanding CheckUser writes that: "there is widespread dismay among nowiki users about how the adminship is operating". This is not of my knowledge and I have been participating in Norwegian Wikipedia for over 2 years. There is no such widespread dismay reflected at the main discussion page "Tinget", and the user account "Hando" is unknown to me. Ulflarsen 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stargate756 @ zh.wiki

According to this discussion, I request to check zh:User:Stargate756 in Chinese Wikipedia.

User:Stargate756 is suspected using IP accounts to attack other users' pages and talk pages for a long time.

The following IP accounts was suspected sockpuppets of User:Stargate756.

--百楽兎 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 所有IP都为Stargate756所使用 --Shizhao 06:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yiddish vote (crosswiki, Meta and yiwiki)

There has been a vote on meta about yi sysopelection. I see the vote on Requests for permissions/Yiddish Wikipedia as not a vote, but at least it is a poll. People have heavy suspicions that there is sockpuppetry here. I support those feelings, based on my experience earlier in yiwiki (see [2], and hereby request a checkuser for the voters against, which are suspected to be sockpuppets (at least partially) from Yidel, user:יודל. I further request a full checkuser of all voters, as I have severe worries. Very likely more relevant information to identify sockpuppets can be obtained from the corresponding accounts (as far as existing) on yiwiki. Please see if better information can be found that way. Also note the votes on [3]. I would also want to request CU here for, for the votes after the header רוני פאר סיסאפ. This is with the same reasons as stated above. Please see whether people voted twice, which is considered illegal. Please block accounts that have voted twice on meta, as well (on meta), and copy a report if there is any on the voting page of the yiddish Wikipedia. Thanks a lot in advance. I realize that it must be a hell of a job. I will not perform the CU myself, as I consider myself too much involved. Effeietsanders 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also i would like to check for open proxy's if involved thanks--יודל 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting to be contacted by email or IRC before you make public the results --Jeo100 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. This isnt normal procedure if u voted twice u know already don't play games here.--יודל 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may not uphold that election. It was not advertised on yi, and several users who had never edited yi: voted. So it's not a "yiddish community" consensus. drini [es:] [commons:] 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, I think all agree on that. I think this can only be seen as a straw poll. But none the less this would be abuse of sockpuppets if you "vote' twice. Hence my request. I realize I must sound a bit cryptic, but to me this is all partly just as confusing as for you guys. I have announced a new vote on yiwiki btw to make sure the community vote is clear, fair etc. Effeietsanders 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can perform that check here (but not on yi), but not at this very second, about to get on an airplane. If it still needs doing when I get a chance I will. Effeitesanders, please, mail me with more info if there is any info that should not be made public... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point on doing it now, isn't it? Let's wait for the real thing. drini [es:] [commons:] 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "let's wait for the real thing"?? Thanks. Perhaps we should discuss further on the checkuser mailing list? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the new elections, done properly within yi:, with a clear set of rules. It's a bad precedent to allow people to come at meta, setup votes here, where people from other projects vote, where we have problems verifying accoutns belonging or duplicated from the local project, and after it, gain adminship here and get local sysophood, specially on wikis with a live community. drini [es:] [commons:] 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recovered from archive -- The request has not yet been fulfilled? I guess there was a mistake. Please make a thorough check for the votes, although the vote on meta was not a valid vote, people tried probably to abuse sockpuppets, and afaik that is not allowed. please consider also checking for open proxies and rangechecking. Thanks, Effeietsanders 10:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's understood without me asking that, but just to be sure, when doing the CU, please make sure to that against the already struckout voters as well. Thank you.--Shmaltz 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg all stewards to stay away from further requests of Effeiet Sanders he has clearly showing very aggressive bias on one side here. by pushing this votes on a community he does not speak its language, while our local sysop dror has explicitly declared the votes illegitimate, he has made his own rules that a user who has no contributions to the main name space is considered in his eyes a user and even if he voted as a sock puppet in the past he will except his vote here if he voted now only once. this is unprecedented rules that are in affect designed by him to push us those votes. Please do not make any check user now because this is helping to hijack our project. and a check user should only be maid if it is in the interest of the project not against it--יודל 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
max sem has put this back from the archives althoghou most users have declared not to make a checkuser. please consider checkuser responsibility's are meant only to strike out sockpupets, we made allready once a checkuser and the sockpupets where not striked out and reverted by user effeitsanders with disregard to the tool so please refrain here from using it again. thanks--יודל 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards won't upholad an election done outside the local project. Elections must be done within each community for several reasons. Therefore, the meta elections is pointless and there's no need to checkuser. Archiving would be a good idea. drini [es:] [commons:] 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly disagree here with you, because it will still be a straw poll, and voting twice in such a poll is as well misleading and thus not allowed. Besides the fact that one of the two polls I mentioned is not on metawiki but on yiwiki, and was set up as a poll, of which the results were unusuable because of all the people striking eachother and interpreting rules differently. But if you are confident of your decision, I'll accept that, and so be it. Effeietsanders 09:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with efiet sanders he has reverted votes of sockpupets and vandals who were declared so by the last check user efiet sanders has requested. if he disrespects the results by pathoschild and max sam and reverts edits that those guilty sockpuptes use, why is he asking this time to make check user again? just to let the sockpuptes of yesterday and block sockpupoets of today. he is evidently to pushy for this please ignore him. checkuser must not be used by manipulation but strictly for identifying vandals or block sockpuptes not to further anybody s agenda--יודל 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote

And another vote on yiwiki has been finished. This was now a real vote, and the results are awaiting confirmation by CU. Please also take the older polls in consideration when checking for CU. Please read the 'voting rules' in English above about the striking of votes. please strike both votes if you find that someone voted twice. Please also check the votes that have already been stroked. This is the vote: [4] . Thanks for your time. If wanted, I am willing to assist with the CU, but I will not do the CU myself, as I am too deep into this matter. Effeietsanders 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is also not real. it was manipulated by EffeietSanders himself he made up the rules that privies sockpupets and open vandals who were blocked by pathoschild and other stewards may vote, and users with zero contribution to the main namespce are eligible while he striked out legitmete users with well over hundredth edits in the main namespace only because they are not a month active against his own policy. Efeit has blocked users who disagree with him. He has declared himself above our community. This is not a way to make a sysop and silence consensus from most users who don't want this candidate as there leader who has declared he will block against everything and everybody against wikimedia policy. This guy was allready sysop and the ofice has took away his power because he abused it day and night. I beg all stewreds and checkusers to use great caution here and to understand that our project is too small to let it be governed by itself. Please do not help in any way Effeit here to manipulate and force his own election with his own rules. Thanks--יודל 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Done So far, the 10 accounts that voted look different, now I'll compare with the ones stricken out 

  1. --שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 23:55, 17 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  2. --אלץ-ווייסער 02:11, 18 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  3. ----יודישער שרייבער 17:42, 18 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  4. -- --י. לעבאוויטש 14:06, 19 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  5. --יעקלראציגער 13:23, 20 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  6. --פוילישער 16:43, 24 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  7. --יואל.מ 16:54, 28 יוני 2007 (UTC)  (user:joel.m ? )
  8. --קאצקער 19:50, 28 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  1. --יודל 14:21, 17 יוני 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Amsgila123 23:40, 19 יוני 2007 (UTC)

Nothing obvious on the stricken ones either. (there are hundreds of ips involved in this, however). So, should we process the results of the election as well? drini [es:] [commons:] 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) drini [es:] [commons:] 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the results are clear most ips are sockpupets from phones and ip changers, names that warnt used in months were suddenly awakened to vote and blocked users and privies sockpuptes should not be counted. but thats my opinion. Please if somebody can talk to Danny to ask him what to do he was involved from day one as the founder steward burocart and sysop of this project, and was elected sysop again last month. consensus is clear here this candiate is a dangeres felow the ofice was allready forced to desysop him, whoever does again this move to make him sysop will have to deal with his further abuse of the rest of the community. because all the striked out votes are a clear majourety here. so the circumstences are very very blured and murky. good luck--יודל 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since all stricken out used the same edit pattern and this user is known to use an ISP with dynamic IP’s, can you verify this? If there are form the same ISP. It’s not fair that 1 user with a dynamic IP should manipulate a wiki with “100” different “socketpuppet‘s” is there a way to verify this?--Jeo100 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say the vote is valid. Precisely becuase nobody could create accoutns and vote to rig the electon. Only stablished users (with more than 1 month and more than 100 edits) could vote, and they are all different. But that's a personal opinion. I only did the checkuser job, and it seems to me, there were no sockpuppets on the valid votes. drini [es:] [commons:] 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whats really sure is that one user was idetefied by pathoschild as using a huge ip range. and he said explicitly on pathoschilds talk page in meta that he writes from a network with 20 ips. So compared with the fact that users who werent active more then months, we cannot hope the checkuser tool to fish them out. what we know for sude is that efiet has reverted some votes here that were identified on privies checks to be sockpupets so he is clearly puting his opinion on the community he doesn't speak its language. My personal opinion is to ask Danny or Harel or Dror the existing elected sysops of the community what to do with these votes. If it is a consensus against this candidate or for him.--יודל 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONIOLO@itwikinews

Please check it:n:Utente:CONIOLO and the IP 79.10.95.25. Thanks --valepert 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY? drini [es:] [commons:] 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praveenp@mlwikipedia

please check the following users . They seems to be sockpuppet accounts of ml:user:praveenp

All the four users were voted in this page.--Jasz 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts have been inactive for too long, so checkuser can't provide any information. drini [es:] [commons:] 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Jasz 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Checkuser&oldid=628809"