Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2011

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



List of users

It seems that in the voting for approval of Rusyn language that most of the people that promoted it are Russians. It seems that there is a strong interest of Russians in this voting. Therefore, there is a suspicion that there was a double voting --krystofer. — Request made by anonymous user using signature from registered user; cfr. [1] & [2]. --dferg ☎ talk 10:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure I see a valid reason here. Why do you suspect of votestacking? --dferg ☎ talk 10:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: requests for new languages are discussions, not votings. The Language subcommitee has stated numerous times that when judging a proposal they won't be looking at the number of voters but at the arguments provided by each participant among other requisites. There's also a final board approval that has been given. --dferg ☎ talk 10:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about approval of Rusyn Wiki itself. It is about the way voting and discussion was made. -- 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there is a slight language barrier. maybe we are not getting it, or maybe you are confused as to what this page is used for. CheckUser is a technical function that can assist in finding if a specific person is using more than one account on-wiki. Your request states that most of the people that promoted it are Russians. This has nothing to do with the CU request itself and does not show any possible abuse of multiple accounts. If you can provide us with evidence, preferably via diffs that supports a theory that the above listed accounts are socks then we can run a check. Tiptoety talk 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment This request was born during the ukwiki discussion on Rusyn language, and I find it a great excess. Most of these users have SULs with huge contributions on other projects, and I think that it would be very strange for an ex-ruwiki crat to create a sock and promote it to nlwikisource crat just for supporting Rusyn Wikipedia... In fact the only reason can be searching for abusing multiple accounts in order to stay within the limit of 3 editors per month, but I find it highly unlikely — NickK 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance it seems for me that user:Patriot8790 was created just to vote, because it was created on May 5th 2010 and voted at the same time. I've mentioned Russians because I surely know those are politically inclined people and they are highly interested in promoting Rusyn Wiki. I suspect some of them might have created socks. -- 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He was active on elwiki since June 2009. Too strange for a sock of Russian user — NickK 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm officially marking this as  Declined. Tiptoety talk 05:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]







ElectroStatic Jolt

ElectroStatic Jolt is a locked account, previously blocked here and on, that has the single purpose of creating obvious CU (ex. 1 ex. 2) or block requests, most of them from accounts already blocked (ex. 3) or when CU is not necessary and it is even being misused (ex.4 ex.5)

He is using the second account to evade his b/lock. The two most recent requests for CU done by Mamonas Assasinas made me believe that checking and blocking him is necessary to avoid more mistaken requests done by him. This diff is enough to prove relation between IP and account (Dinho was renamed to Mamonas Assasinas)

Aditional info

He used today to edit on pt.wikipedia, where he confirms he made a request for checkuser here.

Here he uses two of his IP where we he says that he is not ElectroStatic Jolt, that he is not 'guilty' and that his block was a mistake of the checkuser tool.

He requested that his own acount were checked; the reasons are confusing even for those that understand Portuguese, but he was apparently trying to prove innocence. On that request those IP are the same user (ElectroStatic Jolt).

The link between ElectroStatic Jolt and some others can be seen here.

If you consider this request not necessary for this account being a duck, I will have no objection and I hope this helps to stop the misuse of SRCU. Thanks.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following accounts are both Likely Likely related to one another, and Likely Likely related to the above group:

Johnny the Vandal again?

Hephaestös created a userpage (User:Hephaestös) with the text "This is Hephaestos not Johnny the Vandal.". This is suspicious imo. Could you check if it's Johnny the Vandal? See also this (imcomplete) file on nl-wiki for more information about IP's, other accounts et cetera. Thanks in advance. Regards, Trijnstel 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd - it rings bells but I can see nothing definite that makes me think it is although some aspects remind me of something... I would say it was one to leave for now I think. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]




These accounts and their edits remind me of this group, with Celery (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser) and Hong99 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser) also active on meta. Their ways of spamming are similar and the sites they're spamming look alike. Are these accounts related to each other and the aforementioned group? Mathonius 09:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeacky09222 and Hugh02288 are obviously related and are blocked as such. As for the others technically I can't tell. May be related per edit patterns but this kind of automated programs often abuses open proxies (which seems to be this case) so keeping reverting, blocking and blacklisting (locally or globally) looks a better option since IP blocking will be near to useless as far as I can tell. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Marcus Luccas

Please check if Marcus Luccas is related to Quintinense. He's know for his frequent block evasions on, always trying to change local policies and guidelines. Both have the same edit pattern (as pointed here and also suspected due to Marcus recent editions on this template and its talk page, defending Quintinense's beloved "Carnaval notability guideline". See also Paulotanner contributions, his last blocked sock). I'm asking it here because Quintinense is blocked on since 2009, but the account remains active on others projects (such as Meta and Commons). Thank you. --Ajudante do Papai Noel 00:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this request. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Possible Possible. They are both operating from the same ISP and general location. That said, the location is highly populated, and other technical data does not suggest they are the same person. Tiptoety talk 03:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]