Steward requests/Checkuser/2015-02

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 February 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Stho002@species.wikimedia.org

 Confirmed Stho002, ZooBank, Biota and BiodiverseCity. No evidence of collateral damage if range block is needed, though it is something that would require vigilance and a means for users caught into the future to seek IP exemption.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast assistance. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-staar@en.wikiquote

The following aggregated IP addresses and associated ranges might be related:
  • 166.147.118.210
  • 166.147.120.147
  • 166.147.123.24
  • 166.147.123.30
  • 166.205.48.98
  • 166.205.55.36
  • 166.205.55.44
  • 172.56.1.4
  • 172.56.27.65
  • 172.56.28.42
  • 172.56.33.183

All above IP addresses have been blocked previously on en.wikiquote for similar spates of vandalism.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

One addition = Hellpraiser (talk · contribs) link, returned after a three (3) year absence. Impressive that the vandal / sockmaster still knows his password after that long. -- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also please correlate check with Sir Knolte (talk · contribs), link, another account dormant for three (3) years, only to come back today, seemingly still knows its password. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Now see also https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.113.150.24 -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And also https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.113.150.22 -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done accounts locked, and other measures take to address concerns. To note the IP data is another known vandal, and if that point of origin vandal continues stewards have data for that xwiki vandal that can be applied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Which vandal is the other one? -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Two more = [1] and [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!!! -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more please: [3] and [4] -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also check these: [5], [6], [7] -- for blocks on underlying IPs, and rangeblocks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
See Dragonluvr55, it's possible this one might be unrelated, please let me know either way. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
More to check, please [8] -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
One more at [9] -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
ANOTHER [10] -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Blocked some ranges. Unlikely that Dragonluvr55 is related. Mathonius (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

م.سخایی@fa.wikipedia

Yes check.svg Done. I was able to match the following two groups of accounts. I haven't been able to connect both groups to eachother though.

Group 1
Group 2

I hope this helps. Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much--Sahehco (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sakis Sg@el.wikipedia

 Confirmed for Lonesome Warrior, Sakis Sg and Liberal36 + some IPs, taking a look at page history I'd even say  It looks like a duck to me. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stho002@species.wikimedia.org

 Confirmed and I will leave blocking of the account to local admins; other measures initiated. I will hazard a guess that they will avoid it and come back, and we can broaden measures. If there is symptomatic posting then we could look to spam filters too.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for your fast assistance! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Don't worry, blocking me may have given you a "hard on", but I have no intention of giving you the full orgasm. I have much better things to do than come back to these stupid Wikimedia sites, which are little more than social experiments gone bad, giving control freaks the power to form angry mobs. You are the king here Billinghurst, but the king of nothing of any significance or value. The hypocrisy is astonishing. @Dan Koehl: and his mob of followers have been allowed to get away unchallenged with all sorts of breaches of policy and even breaches of terms and conditions, while any little mistake I make gets blown up out of all proportion, twisted, and used against me. The irony is that Koehl is just dishing out to me what he is on the receiving end of on svWP (see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Village_Pump#My_block_on_Swedish_Wikipedia). Ciao, Stho002 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhj973@fa.wikipedia

There is no need to check, there has been checks before and result is still on this page. Mardetanha talk 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
+Obvious duck about Nersy and Zeddefesad Amir (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
i want to sure that users (جویا کیان & Mhj973) are Sock puppet or not. --Chakmakk (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No community consensus for checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indra Narayan Banerjee@bn.wikipedia

@NahidSultan: why do we need a check user? The community doesn't need to have a checkuser to resolve the discussion. The usernames would indicate either a sock or a close association between the accounts. Close associations may not be distinguishable anyway. What does knowing whether they are socks do with your handling?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Community asked for it. I'd agree that username maybe a sock or close to each other but before taking any action on the basis of sock, I'd rather want 100% confirmation. ~ Nahid Talk 09:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 Confirmed, all accounts  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Te veo bien@es.wikivoyage

Done. The original account is of course stale, but I compared it with the recorded data about Geo23. --MF-W 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Toleranciahoy@es.wikiquote

Inconclusive Inconclusive for one day's edit it is pretty hard to draw much in the way of conclusions. No evidence of any tie between current data and historical data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Salt100@et.wikipedia

Regarding my last question, am I right that someone potentially affected by an IP block would see the text entered into the Reason input field of the blocking html-form while trying to log in? So that's where we need to direct users to admin pages at meta? Cumbril (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed as same vandal by provider. If you wish to redirect users with a message, the simplest way is to reblock the ranges and put in a specific message that points users to an alternate place. I would suggest that the alternate place is a local wikipage which gives the required instructions, eg. some wikilinks to admins pages at meta, which might give further information. As these are soft blocks, users can login once they have an account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: There was one more attack by the same vandal: now under username Salt101, [12]. Since I'm going to send a letter to the internet service provider (or set up a soft block if the letter does not do the trick), could you send me the IP-s of these two last cases. I was forwarded previous IP-s, would like to have them all. Will contact you by stewards@wikimedia.org. I'm et.wiki admin user. Cumbril (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Status:    Done
List of users
Salt101 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Reason(s): Please provide a reason.

 Confirmed and doing a followup to my first reply to your message in stewards' OTRS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Skettos7@el.wikipedia

  • Has this matter been discussed at elWP? The request should be discussed at that wiki prior to progressing here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Every time we (as users) want to discuss such matters (sock puppetry cases) with admins at el@wiki, they tell us first to ask for a checkuser so we can prove that our suspicions are right and, then, start a discussion about taking measures against those users if the checkuser is positive. So, I don't think that sending back the problem to el@wiki (and then being told, again, to send it to meta) would help in this case and in sock puppetry cases in general. Some of these two bodies (el@wiki admins and meta stewards) has to take a decision and sending (indirectly of course) the problem to each other won't help in that direction. Just an example to prove you what I'm saying here, in a quite similar case, with an obvious puppet, an admin responded me by saying "Κανείς διαχειριστής ή γραφειοκράτης δεν έχει δυνατότητα διαπίστωσης μαριονέτας (ή μη) στην ελληνόφωνη ΒΠ. Αν έχεις σχετικές υπόνοιες μπορείς να ζητήσεις Checkuser στο meta."-"No admin or bureaucrat is able to prove if a user is a puppet or not on el@wiki. If you have any suspicions you can ask for a Checkuser on meta." And there are numerous cases like this with this same (or nearly) answer from admins. Letting down the matter wouldn't help at all.--Glorious 93 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Having multiple accounts is not contrary to WMF policy, so that itself is not a consideration for stewards. For a local policy for stewards to run a checkuser the checkuser policy directs us that a conversation should take place on the local wiki, so where a general user has a case it should be supported on the local wiki by those who are charged with enforcing the policy. In this case I believe that we need a local discussion at elWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Closed Closed stale discussion, no comment for a week.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ridler o arnold@bg.wikipedia

I locked Ridler o arnold. All other accounts are already locked. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Петър Петров (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Idoll-olga@no.wikipedia

All those accounts are confirmed sockpuppets from one of two IPs (one mobile the other fixed). Scargsmint, Elis20005 and Video Frankenstein are three socks not included in that list, though the last is already blocked. I'm not sure if they are good candidates for a global lock given that some accounts appear to be editing productively; if another stewards wants to look into it further they are free too. I need to go and write a test now. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have blocked two of the accounts not already blocked. - 4ing (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Badieem@fa.wikipedia

 Confirmed for Viator313, م.سخایی, Hananeh.M.h and also Srahmadi, حسین وحید and M.Sakhaie (all blocked on commonswiki for sockpuppet abuse)
Likely Likely for امید ایرانی
Unlikely Unlikely for امید ایرانی, Mhhossein and Badieem. Elfix 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Updated Elfix 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

تولیش@fa.wikipedia

Seems to be three different users, though each has a sock
  •  Confirmed تولیش and شاه بابل
  •  Confirmed فرارو and Iroony
  •  Confirmed Polkash, Manoooood and LOVAKO
 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yamaha5 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhj973@fa.wikipedia

Comment Comment User Ab&bargh is sockpupet himself and is blocked in fawiki 13:02, Mardetanha User talk:Mardetanha 28 February 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done please present consensus at faWP for this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As much as I don't agree with behavior of this reporter, I don't agree with behavior users who this user reported, all of them are violent with NPOV, it's truly says that this user is actively edits against Iranian government which is against NPOV, I also checked some of edits by users who are reported, adding content to support Iranian government and telling will add the references or adding non-trusted resources, it seems some of them might match and already blocked in fawiki. some of fawiki admins can't take action against users being supportive with Iranian government because they live in Iran. if there is policy called "suckpopet" it must act same for all, not only for some specific users. could you please tell me where is the consensus for other two requests? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This request was disputed. This was also a longer list of names and contained names of users previously checked. As it is a seemingly coverall rquest, rather than a specific case it is closer to fishing, which is not the basis for checkuser and without a better evidence-base it should not be undertaken. Administrators at faWP are aware of alternate means to have checkuser requests undertaken if required. Further, I doubt that we should be taking requests from sockpuppets who will not be able to implement any result from a checkuser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To note that stewards undertaking checkusers is neither for nor against pro-/anti-government editing, it is for sock puppetry as per the policy. The community will decide about specific editing on the wiki, that is not the role of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you we should not accept request from sockpuppets, but you said consensus. My latest CU request was also not done while I was the admin that wiki. according to [13] User:Dostatdaram was already matched and blocked. User:Badieem also has a very violent edits with NPOV, reed this, even a machine translated would say what this is about, it truly says there is no freedom for news reporters in the U.S. relying on an Iranian internal source, the content is still there, wikipedia is not what it suppose to be. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gagik18@hy.wikipedia

Where are these users participants and what makes you think there could be a link? --MF-W 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[14], participant (Lakiditto098) said that his brother allegedly Gagik (Gagik18).--6AND5 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[15]--6AND5 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@6AND5: that still doesn't indicate the purpose of knowing that they are related parties. An interest in a relationship alone is not a reason for checkuser. There would be need for a proof of wrongdoing, circumventing votes, circumventing blocks, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is that the participant (Lakiditto098 (same 1221nor, Lilit1345, Karenpetrosyan)The following accounts are  Confirmed) is blocked (unlimited), and now his brother allegedly began to write articles. --6AND5 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is his brother that may or may not mean the same IP address. It may or may not mean the same user agents, etc. There is nothing that we can do that is going to differentiate that sort of relationship and you will need to work it out for yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Member admitted he and his brother one person.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Closed Closed Issue resolved by community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, а можно показывать все новые записи этого участника в армянской Википедии [16] [17]?--6AND5 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi@en.wikipedia

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi

With reference to previous investigation Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi/Archive can the following two can be identified as the Sockpuppet.

Reason: Keeps on adding and supporting about Shahzad Ali Najmi and his book, used for commercial advertising.

As the previous Sockpuppets which were Blocked in English Wikipedia and later on Urdu Wikipedia, these two users are acting as the same.

Please confirm if the are Sockpuppets. --Tahir mq (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. En.wiki has local checkusers. Savhñ 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gagik18@hy.wikipedia

Where are these users participants and what makes you think there could be a link? --MF-W 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[18], participant (Lakiditto098) said that his brother allegedly Gagik (Gagik18).--6AND5 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[19]--6AND5 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@6AND5: that still doesn't indicate the purpose of knowing that they are related parties. An interest in a relationship alone is not a reason for checkuser. There would be need for a proof of wrongdoing, circumventing votes, circumventing blocks, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is that the participant (Lakiditto098 (same 1221nor, Lilit1345, Karenpetrosyan)The following accounts are  Confirmed) is blocked (unlimited), and now his brother allegedly began to write articles. --6AND5 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is his brother that may or may not mean the same IP address. It may or may not mean the same user agents, etc. There is nothing that we can do that is going to differentiate that sort of relationship and you will need to work it out for yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Member admitted he and his brother one person.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Closed Closed Issue resolved by community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, а можно показывать все новые записи этого участника в армянской Википедии [20] [21]?--6AND5 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)