Meta:Requests for CheckUser information

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for CheckUser information on Meta-Wiki (for other wikis please go to here) Archives (current)→
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 addresses, 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}}: Symbol wait.svg 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[edit]

PastelKos[edit]

See the new concerns by Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages#Proposal Option 2, where some users raised some indeed well arguments, that some, but indeed not all of supporters of this RFC are not really every individual users, but someone (or somewhat an Internet military force) who knows CDN technology, that controlled some hands, one account by one hand, to make so-called "consensus", if this is the really case, it would explain several oddities, that SHB2000 and other oppose users concerned in the past with some recurring canvassing, trolling and yelling here which were all heroically by their hands. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional hints:
  1. Per Steward_requests/Checkuser/2021-10#C64_is_the_best_computer@incubator, Gifnk dlm 2020 and C64 is the best computer are confirmed;
  2. Per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Goutamkumar_Oinam/Archive#22_February_2021, Haoreima and Kangleingakpa are just Goutamkumar Oinam, see also [1];
  3. I'm also interested in en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Niceguylucky/Archive, that mentioned AnotherEditor144. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On top of what Liuxinyu970226 mentioned, I half agree that this looks suspicious. When I mean "half agree", some like AnotherEditor144 or Gifnk dlm 2020 definitely look suspicious, but others like Haoreima who mostly edits mniwiki and has about 14k edits there or Amahoney who has 11k edits on lawiki (and a sysop there too) don't seem to be the same person. But I'm pretty sure that at least two of these are related to each other, but I could be wrong, although I'm quite highly sure that AE144 is a sock of someone (they seem too knowledgable for a user with 1,063 global edits, and was blocked on enwiki for that reason). SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for stating that’s a lot of users to check. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 19:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean yeah whatever, I have no sock accounts so check all you want --PastelKos (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment This request is difficult to process unless you group them in detail. Unless you're claiming that these users are all the same user, checking all users is fishing. --Sotiale (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably many things regarding this topic are only able to be provided by SHB2000, the things I can provide are:
  1. Gifnk dlm 2020 is the biggest fun of canvassing on Incubator as of now I can see, nearly all edits of the pages categorized by incubator:Category:Incubator:Test wikis/code/history by this user are:
:{{Notice|Currently Ancient languages are not eligible for new wikis. There has been a request to change this policy. You can sign your support [[meta:Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages|here]].}} :
this was supported by many users that have globally less than 100 edits, some are even having no userpages, just because "they think Gifnk... didn't canvassing, but just supporting us"
  1. Several numbers of supporters of Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Archive copy-pasted {{ping}}s that used by other users every day, on many wikis, results my Notification system got 1,000+ alerts one day (probably 1.5 months ago, not sure which day), I don't know how likely this isn't a violation of mw:Code of Conduct?
  2. Some more "per enwiki"s:
  1. AE144 and Niceguylucky only "contribute many contents" every weekends, as well as other confirmed ones by en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niceguylucky/Archive
  2. Haoreima and Awangba Mangang were only providing coverts
  1. The only edits by Heracletus (though signed ALPES Ancient Language Promotion, Education and Support which is keystone-ly closed to the RFC), Sigur, Robbinorion, Sailor Ceres, Vikipad, EvilPita ... are voting on that RFC and, on some other discussions under RFL or PNP umbrellas, vote-stacking, within a very short period of times
  2. It also looks like JimKillock did only know how to make (Edit conflict.)s when I am, or langcom members are commenting on the RFC, dropping too many things that "are useful under their own umbrella", but unnecessary for a RFC to be approved (saying how langcom was wrong, saying how the global policies were wrong, and saying how their own world is right, but nothing on helping to maintenance and polish the policies) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Any more ideas on how to group their behaviors? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Apologies for not replying earlier. Have been interstate last week so couldn't reply. From what I can tell, it's obvious they'll not all the same user, but what I'm thinking is that one of them also edit under the account "AnotherEditor144" and/or "Gifnk dlm 2020", whose sockpuppet "C64 is the best computer", is globally locked. OTOH, the copypasting pings isn't surprising, given it's much easier to just copy and paste the ping rather than rewrite it (although that would be a copyvio against CC BY SA 3.0, although this isn't the place for that discussion). Apart from that, think you've covered everything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I readily support this checkuser investigation to show everyone that I am truly innocent. Well, it's totally futile to mention my sock puppets here because I committed sock puppetry only at English Wikipedia and not here. Well, checkusers will reveal everything! All the best! :) Haoreima (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Meta CUs close this request as not done. If there are any socks here, I am very certain they would still be at least three different users. Also, it doesn't affect any outcomes of any requests. --MF-W 12:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spam accounts group[edit]

and more and more accounts. Recently, I found several accounts were created on meta trying to spam a link called Akirachix. it seemed as a pile of socks trying to promote something. Could we enact a checkuser on them and block them all? PAVLOV 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Doing... Sgd. —Hasley 11:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like these all are different users associated with an African edit-a-thon or campaign of some sort. This does not look like socking. However, their behaviour may well be considered spam, and therefore, I will leave it up to another admin to decide what action is appropriate at this point. Sgd. —Hasley 12:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking the pages seems okay except that link, so keen to blacklist it. I am not sure the intention of the company running the edit-thorn, are they doing online literacy courses with one element of a lesson setting up a page here to advertise? Unsure. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PowerfulGorilla[edit]

Adding same kind of gibberish into pages. Seems to be an LTA but I'm assuming good faith instead of reporting directly to SRG. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them both without CUing. Their contributions alone justify the block. Thanks for reporting. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA Marat Gubaiev[edit]

Today, Marat Gubaiev again pursuing users in various projects. I noticed the account ВП без дідівщини registered here, which is typical of him. Please check on the basis of the last two blocked his accounts and find out which ones he still managed to register before he managed to use. --Mykola talk 15:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked the latter two and don't see any unlocked socks on the range. Will leave it to another CU to check they first; I don't have much context on this LTA and I'm not sure that the name itself justifies a check without that context. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This nickname translates as "WP without hazing". This LTA in UkWiki once wrote accusations of hazing, and today about provocations from the admins, so I'm concluded that it could be the same user. Mykola talk 15:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the further context. I've checked the first account,  Confirmed as a sock, no other unlocked/unblocked socks on the range. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Mykola talk 15:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kromsipol[edit]

The account was registered 8 days ago for the sole purpose of requesting the deletion of my (and some others) user page and persecution. This user has no other contribution to the Wikimedia projects. I admit that someone decided to hide their actions in such a way. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, using an undisclosed account on its own is not a reason for being CU-ed. So far, Kromsipol has done nothing disruptive either. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fishing? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done - no obviously disruptive editing that I can see, no other potential abuse of multiple accounts. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liuxinyu970226[edit]

Potential IP socking. Please check whether he has abused IP socks or not. Evidences have already sent to CUers privately due to privacy concern. Thanks. SCP-2000 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't know why you're submitting CU request solely regarding me, I don't use any sock accounts, nor mis-using of IP editing, through bugs can't always be avoid, I strongly condemn IP harrasements like what you reverted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: This request is only based on evidences. These evidences show that you may abuse IP socks. Of course, it is possible that others use these IP socks instead of you. If you have not abused IP socks before, it is suggested waiting the CU result. Thanks. SCP-2000 05:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCP-2000 By running cmd, I'm currently using 218.57.2.254, and by checking its range Special:Contributions/218.57.2.0/16 there are no logged-out edits. Is this enough for you to withdraw? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: Is there still need to check me? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Handling by CUer would be better. --SCP-2000 09:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose@SCP-2000 As you didn't provide why I was abusing, nor provide other suspected sock accounts, like Kromsipol case above, you did a trainwreck check request. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]