Steward requests/Checkuser/2014-06

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 on 01 June 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Gilemard-tabarestan@fa.wikipedia

If the IP addresses are known, then there is no need to do a CU check; and if the IP addresses are problematic they can easily be blocked individually or by range, especially 174.34.164.0/22 which is a ubiquity range. If the account is problematic, then it can be blocked without knowing if it is associated with the IP addresses. I am not seeing what a CU check will provide outside what you already know. My feeling is that this should be marked "not done", though happy to hear a counter argument on how CU data may be helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: How about "Gilemard-tabarestan"? Could you please check if it is the same "کولاک"? Since the latter has been blocked, editing with a new account would not be admissible. In fact this CU request is based on the similarity of these two accounts, but User:4nn1l2 asked me to re-block the main account due to editing with a SP and some IPs during the blocking term and I should have an evidence in order to do it. Mehran Debate 13:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Inconclusive Inconclusive there are some common factors, there are factors of difference, and if pushed, I would say less likely but truly not enough information if relying on CU data. There is no evident relationship between the IPs listed and any of the accounts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Mehran Debate 10:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple IPs @brwikimedia and @metawiki

  • 189.38.143.158 and 189.38.144.144 have made some personal attacks on brwikimedia weeks ago
  • 189.38.142.39 and 189.38.142.144 (edited today) have made also some here on Meta
  • 189.38.145.254 and 189.38.142.110 have also done some personal attacks on brwikimedia, buth months ago.

I believe that those IP addresses are an attempt of Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]/R.T.Argenton [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]/Rodrigo.Argenton [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] to hide new personal attacks within its main account. At time of personal attacks on brwikimedia he wasn't blocked on brwikimedia, but on ptwikipedia. A cross-check between brwikimedia, metawiki and ptwikinews may be enough to confirm my suspicion.

A brief summary of reasons that most pt-N users aren't willing to further work with Argenton is available at this edit. Those are also the reasons that can enforce an attempt from him to hide some of his personal attacks: give the impression that many hates our actions, not only that an entire community is gradually choosing to simply ignore Argenton's existence (we have disagreements, but not at the level that Argenton tries to advertise in places such his infamous RfC). Lugusto 01:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-steward observation) Unless the abuse is very extreme, we will not connect IP addresses with accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If trolling an entire community and trying to damage any attempt to make outreach actions isn't very abusive, I simply can't realize what should be considered as an very extreme abusive behaviour. Lugusto 03:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In this case just block these IPs. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
He, as expected, keeps saying that isn't the same user. Isn't possible to run a check without making the results available to the public but at least sending a private (Special:EmailUser) alert to Argenton (or whatever else that is behind those IPs) to just stop and, in case of future abusive behaviour here on meta, doing an indef block to his local (meta) user accounts (since the local accounts are timed or indef blocked)? Lugusto 18:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
As a local checkuser at meta, I can have a look at the local edits, and look to discuss any issue that may arise if I consider there has been local abuse. I doubt that a report can be made here about the checks at such an early stage of an inquiry.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@555: As a note to the original IPs that were supplied, you can block 189.38.142.0/24, 189.38.143.0/24, 189.38.144.0/23 as they are in a reasonable tight range. Make them anonymous only, and not allow user account creations. It is a case of watch and act so that the person abusing is restricted or prevented from acting. Whether your communities wish to act with someone will require to be a separate matter at this point of time. At some point these vandals slip up (and they have to be really really clever), and rather than just getting a warning, the consequences are more severe.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst. I've blocked those on brwikimedia and on ptwikisource (this last one because a portion of personal attacks was directed to me and is possible that the user behind those IPs tries new ways to provoke me). Lugusto 20:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Aqui mando yo@es.wikivoyage

@Zerabat: If the accounts or the IP addresses are problematic then block them. I do not see how a CU helps or what information you believe that it will provide. FWIW the Belize IP address is unlikely to be the named vandal. So I don't see that a CU helps though happy to hear how you believe that it will help.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
closing as stale  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ارژنگ@fa.wikipedia

There is no evidence why the check should be done, or for what purpose. If either the IP address or user is a problem, then use the block function.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stamsarg@el.wikipedia

@C messier: above Likely Likely and below  Confirmed. It would be enough for me to challenge the account, and if the response is unsuitable, to block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No response. I guess the account is now inactive. --C messier (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

TanviirWiki@bn.wikipedia

TanviirWiki, Junipondit and মুরব্বি৮০ are  Confirmed. Other Possible Possible socks include Shahadat_ali_rony and Stzonectg. Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Logical atomism@fa.wikipedia

Mr Bozarjomehr, Logical atomism, ایرانمند, Iran92 are Likely Likely the same user. Rayanist is Inconclusive Inconclusive. Ruslik (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Europefan@fr.wikipedia

X mark.svg Not done Stewards are unable to undertake checkuser activities on wikis with their own checkusers unless it is an emergency, which this is not. I doubt that they will find anything anyway, Europefan has not edited in over a year.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Europefan has not edited in a year, but his socks have. But please contact the CUs (such as User:Elfix on fr.wikipedia about this matter). --Rschen7754 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Zerinhelali@bn.wikipedia

Rokeyakeya and Helal vuiyan are  Confirmed. Ahsan mahfuj is  Confirmed technically but has no edits, so please be careful. There are other accounts on the ranges, but they may be legitimate.
On a technical basis, Zerinhelali is Possible Possible. --Rschen7754 17:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Rschen7754. ~ Nahid Talk 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)