Steward requests/Checkuser/2013-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

D&S@pt.wiktionary

Unrelated Unrelated The accounts are totally unrelated to each other, and also cannot be connected to D&S from previous requests. Please also note that every one the accounts has more than 1000 edits globally (see the "cA" links in the request template). They probably are established users on other wikis... --MF-W 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Zfilow@mk.wikipedia

  • Comment Comment IPS-u-Beogradu is already blocked on multiple wikis for being related to this Igor Janev stuff, no need to checkuser. --MF-W 02:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Again appeared the same person is possible that user. That uses multiple accounts. --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Deal with the accounts and their actions, checkuser isn't going to show anything knew or affect the behaviour. If it is a problematic account, deal with it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I made a mistake should not have sh than mk wiki. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg not done - outrageous request. --MF-W 18:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Igor Janev@mk.wikipedia

 It looks like a duck to me--Shizhao (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed below by MF-W. Vogone talk 12:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg not done - outrageous request, a duck is a duck. --MF-W 18:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

کیهانی@fa.wikipedia

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --MF-W 12:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC) I started this but probably won't be able to finish it before tomorrow evening (UTC). If in the meantime another steward wants to check, I'd have nothing against that. --MF-W 12:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated Unrelated --MF-W 18:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

MFA.Kabinet.RM@mk.wikipedia

 Confirmed. A few other socks were found and locked. Ruslik (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Александар Македонски@mk.wikipedia

The following users are  Confirmed:
  • Александар Македонски
  • Sitel.TV
  • Obedineta Dijaspora
  • Kolega2357
  • Univerzitetski. Profesor
  • Игор.Јанев
  • Igor Janev
  • the 4 users from the section above
  • etc. pp. ad nauseam
Congratulations. --MF-W 23:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please lock following accounts: Sitel.TV, Obedineta Dijaspora and Александар Македонски. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We usually don't only lock a subset of such a list of confirmed users. Did you actually look closely enough at the list provided by MF-W above? Don't you care to explain yourself, Kolega2357? -Barras talk 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding. I do not have anything to do with these accounts. I use the internet with a dynamic IP address, I am not know which was previously used IP address. --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I can only say that based on the CU data that is available on mkwiki, in my judgement, either everyone including you is confirmed or nobody at all. --MF-W 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

관악543@ko.wikibooks

Note that 관악543 was blocked for 1 month due to insulting others. by ReviDiscussSUL Info at 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed, also 만정밀37 belongs to the same user. Ruslik (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Zedetaghalob@fa.wikipedia

The following are  Confirmed (I'll send you the CU info privately):
  • A.sarajian
  • Ghdavani
  • Shemshadi
  • Solymanzadeh
  • Zedetaghalob
  • Jadidtarin
With regards, Trijnsteltalk 18:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Huji (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Gtrbolivar@el.wikipedia

Please provide more information, e.g. about where the multiple voting and vandalism happened. Also please show how it is necessary to checkuser this, as opposed to e.g. taking action against the users on behavioural evidence. --MF-W 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I sent the message after the prompt and the license of administrator C messier.85.72.203.215 21:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the noble administrator C messier could come here himself to explain the request? --MF-W 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All the above users have in some way disrupted the wikipedia with edit wars that lasted many days, especially in the article of Panathinaikos. Picker78 was confirmed in the past that used puppets to continue the edit wars Steward requests/Checkuser/2013-05#Picker78@el.wikipedia and JJTorrance whose only contributions where in Panathinaikos article, writing in the summary similar things with the confirmed puppet RainbowDemon, eg. this is a lie and not confirmed (Το κείμενο δεν ειναι τεκμηριωμένο είναι ψευδές), removing trophies of Panathinaikos repeatedetly, although his changes where reversed.

ONTAKISHE & Kolokotronis1770 were two accounts whose first contributions were to change the colors in semifinals, which was at the time a matter of debate, [4] [5]. The other user who also was in favour of this change at that momment was Gtrbolivar (only). Kolokotronis1770 reappered the day checkuser was asked.

Easternipper voted in a discussion and before it he had only one contribution, in an article on an historic win of Panathinaikos over Olympiakos. It is possible that he is picker, a user known to have a POV against Panathinaikos, and reacted very badly when he was said a puppet and for that he was banned.

It is more difficult to connect Gtrbolivar with Picker78, but both have a common pattern when involved in an edit war eg. reversing rather talking to find a solution. The edit wars are mainly in Panathinaikos article. Maybe they both created puppets and involved them in edit wars, but these puppets where also used to edit articles irrelevant with the edit war. Also, something else that puppets have in common is that the empty their userpages (if they have the puppet template) and write their name, ONTAKISHE (possible puppet of Gtrbolivar) and Picker78 and also, all but one confirmed puppets of Picker78 writted in their user pages just their names. Kolokotronis1770 removed too the puppet template in his user page.

However, i'm not sure whether all this are enough for checkuser, but, edit wars in Panathinaikos disrupt wikipedia for more than one year one way or another and I think it would be usefull to now if for them is responsible one person. --C messier (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stewards, I would like to inform you that I have a long and steadfast history of contributions in wikipedia: I've created pages, enriched numerous articles in many wikipedias, uploaded a great amount of rare photos and I have never vandalised pages. The whole thing is just a slanderous attack, as they haven't produced one iota of evidence that connects me to acts of vandalism. Besides the fact that I am personally offended by that, I think you should know that the so called "vandalism" they are referring to is just a dispute between me and an other editor (Sporting). He thinks that wikipedia is his personal domain and attacks anyone who has a different point of view. He has a well-known (notorious I might add) habit of accusing users of being puppets (surprisingly when they disagree with him). That is all. I want this to be very clear: I've never vandalised a page, I've never voted multiple times. These are false accusations and monstrous lies. If you decide to check me out you'll see that I have nothing to do with the above-mentioned users. I don't know if those other users have vandalised articles, but I am perfectly sure of the fact that I have never vandalised an article, or done something that deviates from wikipedia's established principles. It's really outrageous how they are trying to connect me with actions of other users. Ridiculous as it may seem, I think you'd agree that it would be a shame if anybody starts making requests like that due to a personal feud and without any justification whatsoever. If they wanted to check other possible vandals or puppets, it would be perfectly ok, but their attempt to establish a connection with me through inconceivable conspiracy theories and blatant lies (they even suggested that I prefer to reverse edits rather trying to find a solution, when I have spent an enormous amount of time in solution-finding discussions, as you can easily find out) is undoubtedly frivolous and desperate. Anyway I hereby inform you that I completely agree with your conducting a search on all these accounts. I will add some more, as user Sporting has also accused me of being Picker78, Greek Picker, PAO 1910, Dionisia Bekri, as you can see here: [6]. So, as far as my opinion is concerned, I give you the green light to search any connection of all those accounts to me, even if (as I explained you) there are no grounds for this (besides Sporting's animosity). If you examine the list of my contributions, you'll find out that I have never vandalised pages or done anything outside the wikipedia rules. I always tried to be commensurate with the wiki rules and policies. Thank you in advance for your attention, Gtrbolivar
I see no clear indication that this is a bigger issue of concern to the bureaucrats or administrators; there was the previous CU episode and checks, where accounts were identified, yet they are again listed. Were they locally blocked on the previous occasion, or are they still open? If they were blocked there will not be any available information. An administrator or a bureaucrat from elWP can reopen this with clear statements of concern, and identification of specific accounts rather than this scattergun approach to name and shame, and how the user is in breach of local polices. CU does not stop edit wars, people following the community's rules with mutual respect will (either self-imposed, or administrator-imposed). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The CU was asked for are new accounts, created after the checkuser, not for the confirmed one. --C messier (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Theni.M.Subramani@ta.wikipedia

The following accounts are  Confirmed as socketpuppets of the same user:
786haja
Vaarana18
HK Arun
Theni.M.Subramani is Unrelated Unrelated to the above accounts. Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Ruslik, thanks for helping us. Is it possible to find out if the user account HK Arun is associated with more accounts? Thanks.--Ravi (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no other accounts that I can see. Ruslik (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this.--117.197.197.7 03:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

NowProperty@wikidatawiki

  • Such use of CheckUser is not condoned by the local policy; however, of interest would be whether there could still be some data for NowItem (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) (in case the script failed to delete the data after the prescribed 3 months) - if these are the same, then they are in violation of the local sockpuppetry policy, as the accounts were not declared.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Checkuser is not for fishing. Snowolf How can I help? 05:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Script on a mission is created. Please Checkuser.--GZWDer (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If a bot needs approving, then block it if it hasn't been through the process. CU less likely to be of value here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rajan s@ta.wikipedia

There is no evident issues with the user account abusing alternate accounts. The community would seem to need to draw breath and negotiate resolution of their issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Need a clarification, billinghurst. Did you say that 1) there is no abuse from these accounts, so there is no need for checkuser. or 2) You did a check user and there was no evidence of sockpuppetry. This clarification will really help. -- Sundar (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it is the latter because the status says 'done'. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Sundar (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The answer was provided following my review of checkuser data at taWP based on the identified account. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. In the case of an earlier checkuser request from user Rajan s on Theni.M.Subramani@ta.wikipedia, whether 786haja, Vaarana18 were Theni.M.Subramani's sockpuppet accounts, a totally different account HK Arun@ta.wikipedia was found to be associated with those sockpuppet accounts. In the present case of Rajan s@ta.wikipedia, does your report mean that there is no other existing accounts that are related to it? It is not that we were concerned only about those IP addresses, we were trying to find out whether there are any other user accounts with which Rajan s@ta.wikipedia is associated? If this question was not covered in Sundar's original request, should we make a fresh request to clarify this point? Thanks for your help. --C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I was wondering whether my questions above would be answered, or this case is now closed. Should a new request be launched to ascertain whether the account of Rajan s is related to other user accounts? Thanks for your help.--C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure of your exact policy re sockpuppets, but in my experience socks are multiple accounts on same or similar IP addresses. In this situation there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. Even with confirmations of sock activity no checkuser (IP) data is provided, and it is only extraordinary cases where we would express an IP address and an account in the same breath, and it is not anything do to with standard users. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Billinghurst, appreciate it.--C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Inikos7@el.wikipedia

Unrelated Unrelated no evidence that the headline account is linked with other accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)