Jump to content

Meta:Requests for CheckUser information: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Content deleted Content added
Line 31: Line 31:
:[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]]: the en.wiki block was made taking into account the CU data from meta, because Neotarf is stale on en.wiki. That is to say, checking again on meta wiki would not yield any new information that was not already discussed between myself and a meta CU when the block was made. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]]: the en.wiki block was made taking into account the CU data from meta, because Neotarf is stale on en.wiki. That is to say, checking again on meta wiki would not yield any new information that was not already discussed between myself and a meta CU when the block was made. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::I am not familiar with CU, so I don't know if Neotarf being active a week after Rivselis might yield a more definitive result. For instance, if the IP identified by Neotarf is a valid one and used by Neotarf, but not Rivselis, that would be new information.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 22:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::I am not familiar with CU, so I don't know if Neotarf being active a week after Rivselis might yield a more definitive result. For instance, if the IP identified by Neotarf is a valid one and used by Neotarf, but not Rivselis, that would be new information.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 22:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:::If what you’re asking for is what likely means it’s this: both accounts were using the same relatively stable IP in the same time frame on an ISP where sharing an IP close to someone else usually indicates a connection between accounts. There was a difference in UA, which is why this is likely and not confirmed, but because of the other technical details, multiple CUs agree that the UA doesn’t tell us much. The conclusion I reached in consultation with another CU from a different project upon reviewing the data was that it was likely the same person.<p>There also is behavioural similarity both pre and post-block, that make me believe this is very likely to be the same person. At the same time, CU is not a perfect tool, and the en.wiki ArbCom is able to review additional information that may be submitted in an appeal that CUs don’t have access to. I’ll shut up now and let meta CUs decide how to action your request, but it read as much a request for an explanation of my findings as it did a meta check, which is why I commented :) [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:I will note that ''using'' open proxies is not against any policy or rule. <small>(edit made using an open proxy)</small> [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:I will note that ''using'' open proxies is not against any policy or rule. <small>(edit made using an open proxy)</small> [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::Of course, which is why I said "in this way" as opposed to in any way at all. There are legitimate uses of open proxies. Seeking to falsely discredit another user's actions is not one of them.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::Of course, which is why I said "in this way" as opposed to in any way at all. There are legitimate uses of open proxies. Seeking to falsely discredit another user's actions is not one of them.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:40, 28 July 2019

Shortcut:
RfCU
This page allows you to request CheckUser information on Meta.
Procedure
  • Please read the CheckUser policy before asking for a check.
  • When adding new requests, please use the {{checkuser}} template to list the user names in question and {{checkip}} for IP adresses, which simplifies investigation.
  • List your request at the bottom of the "Requests for Meta-Wiki only" heading.
  • When asking for a check we need to know:
    • why do you believe that the accounts are related (please present evidence for that with the help of diffs, etc.),
    • why, if the accounts are related, they are being used abusively, in violation of policy; and
    • why a block or other measures can't be justified without the need of technical evidence.
Important
Checkuser icons
These indicators are used by CheckUsers and stewards for easier skimming of their notes, actions and comments.
{{Confirmed}}:  Confirmed {{MoreInfo}}: MoreInfo Additional information needed
{{Likely}}: Likely Likely {{Deferred}}: Deferred Deferred to
{{Possible}}: Possible Possible {{Completed}}: Completed Completed
{{Unlikely}}: Unlikely Unlikely {{TakeNote}}: Note Note:
{{Unrelated}}: Unrelated Unrelated {{Doing}}: Doing...
{{Inconclusive}}: Inconclusive Inconclusive {{StaleIP}}: Stale

{{Declined}}:  Declined {{Fishing}}: Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing
{{Pixiedust}}: Pixiedust CheckUser is not magic pixie dust {{8ball}}: 8ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says
{{Duck}}:  It looks like a duck to me {{Crystalball}}: Crystalball CheckUser is not a crystal ball
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Requests for Meta-Wiki only

Neotarf

This is a somewhat unusual request as it concerns a Checkuser decision on the English Wikipedia that has been contested here on Meta through the use of the listed IP address and the main account. Last month the Rivselis account was blocked on the English wikipedia as a suspected sockpuppet of Neotarf citing a "likely" result from Checkuser evidence. A week or so after that block occurred, Neotarf posted to the Rivselis talk page here on Meta to contest the action using the above IP address. Neotarf subsequently pointed to that IP address as proof the accounts were unrelated and badgered the blocking admin from English Wikipedia on his talk page here.

Looking into it, the IP address used shows signs of being an open proxy having been used on multiple Wikimedia projects in different languages, including Chinese, and has clearly been used by multiple users with different geographic profiles. One site identified the IP as a likely proxy. A "likely" finding may mean the accounts are unrelated and the IP is not definitively identified as a proxy server as some services suggest it might be a normal IP address. However, if Neotarf and Rivselis are the same person and the IP address is an open proxy then mutliple policies have been violated. Specifically, the use of an open proxy in this way would violate the policy on open proxies and if Neotarf is knowingly badgering a user with false allegations then that would violate the urbanity policy. However, whether a violation has occurred can't be reasonably determined without checking the above accounts and the IP address.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate: the en.wiki block was made taking into account the CU data from meta, because Neotarf is stale on en.wiki. That is to say, checking again on meta wiki would not yield any new information that was not already discussed between myself and a meta CU when the block was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with CU, so I don't know if Neotarf being active a week after Rivselis might yield a more definitive result. For instance, if the IP identified by Neotarf is a valid one and used by Neotarf, but not Rivselis, that would be new information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If what you’re asking for is what likely means it’s this: both accounts were using the same relatively stable IP in the same time frame on an ISP where sharing an IP close to someone else usually indicates a connection between accounts. There was a difference in UA, which is why this is likely and not confirmed, but because of the other technical details, multiple CUs agree that the UA doesn’t tell us much. The conclusion I reached in consultation with another CU from a different project upon reviewing the data was that it was likely the same person.

There also is behavioural similarity both pre and post-block, that make me believe this is very likely to be the same person. At the same time, CU is not a perfect tool, and the en.wiki ArbCom is able to review additional information that may be submitted in an appeal that CUs don’t have access to. I’ll shut up now and let meta CUs decide how to action your request, but it read as much a request for an explanation of my findings as it did a meta check, which is why I commented :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that using open proxies is not against any policy or rule. (edit made using an open proxy) Vermont (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, which is why I said "in this way" as opposed to in any way at all. There are legitimate uses of open proxies. Seeking to falsely discredit another user's actions is not one of them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also