Steward requests/Checkuser/2015-05

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

Requests

Trance Light@loginwiki

 Confirmed and locked almost 40 accounts and several ranges on sr, sh, tr and kk wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Seskfabrega@hy.wikipedia

Inconclusive Inconclusive Only Seskfabrega has edited in the past three months, there is nothing for us to check further. No overlapping editing, so I don't see that there is an issue here. Crystalball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
billinghurst, You can write or confirm a list of participants - 1221nor (list)?--6AND5 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser is not speculative. Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Сыбыр@incubator.wikimedia

X mark.svg Not done Have you discussed this matter with the admins/crats at the wiki? They would generally be able to handle this without the intervention of stewards, at least at a first level of response. It does not seem evident what a checkuser would achieve, or demonstrated what is being done is contrary to policies for the wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mpb eu@bg.wikipedia

Results
  • For starters: White captain is Stale, can't be checked.
  • Technical evidence suggest that Mpb_eu is  Confirmed to AKSKubrat.
  • And as for McDile, I'd say Unrelated Unrelated.

Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

À la 雞@zh-yue.wikipedia

 Confirmed À la 雞 and 雞雞 are socks of Fête  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aldri tilbake@no.wikipedia

Thanks, I've blocked Karosserista, Puckbing and Pillarguris horn based on edit patterns. Herbjørn Skretting nad Kronny are definitely not socks. Of the rest, some are likely socks and some are indeterminable (based on edit patterns). I'll continue holding my eyes on them. Alltid tilbake and Åtselpelle seem to have unregistered edits from IP-addresses belonging to Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH. - 4ing (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FreightXPress@wikidata

Note that I have included IP-80.134.90.212, as that is the most recent sock of this user and may be the only one that is not stale.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that this is a cross-wiki case, and there may be stuff stored on CUwiki if I remember right: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. --Rschen7754 00:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Per my CU in loginwiki and wikidata and based on previously stored information in CUwiki, FreightXPress is  Confirmed sock. He used mentioned ip as-well. no other sleeper account were found Mardetanha talk 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mardetanha: Fyi the "mentioned IP" is actually not an ip but a very confusing username he picked up. -- Bene* (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Bene Thanks, indeed strange username, Per my Check again he is  Confirmed sock too, no other sleeper found again, as far as I checked he regularly uses constant ip range starting with 91, if nothing can't stop him you might block his range too Mardetanha talk 18:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock of anyone. "he often ends up in disagreement with other users" - since when is that relevant for CheckUser? Apart from that, Tamawashi looks like an abandoned account, what does that account has to do with me? Even if my account would be a secondary account of Tamawashi it would not fall under d:Wikidata:Alternate accounts#Illegitimate uses. As far as editing behavior is concerned, the edits where not anything near complex, nor is "immediately focused on ... classification questions" really surprising in a project that is centered around classification of things. Revealing information about IPs is breach of privacy.

Now, why am I blocked in Wikidata? I also would like to disclose that I had a disagreement with User:Bene*, the one that opened the case here. I understand that this is fine, but it has some extra smell.

Best regards. FreightXPress (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jasper Deng wrote: The policy is clear: you had to declare this as an alternate for it to be legitimate. Either way it was deceptive to the community, because CheckUser has made it clear that you weren't a new user, but rather, a returning old one (and the behavorial evidence was suspicious enough to warrant a check). You also have a history of sockpuppetry here. Hence it remains that this account is blocked indefinitely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"you had to declare this as an alternate for it to be legitimate" - well, it was not an alternate. "You also have a history of sockpuppetry here." - This is funny. You accuse an account of sockpuppetry. Then this account has a history of sockpuppetry simply by having been accused of it. Then you justify blocking with that declaration-derived sorckpuppet history. And all, because 1) User:Bene* had some other opinion on content than me and 2) some CheckUser software correlates two accounts. NSA could not have done better. FreightXPress (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please take this conversation to Wikidata, the discussions over WD policy is not pertinent here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
user:billinghurst Isn't that meta, for meta-discussions? If I am blocked in the central data repository, I cannot edit properly in other projects as well. And why is there a breach of privacy, by associating me with IP-ranges? FreightXPress (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss this somewhere else on meta, go ahead, not an issue (eg. Wikimedia Forum or the talk pages of these correspondents). Not here the checkuser has been done, and this is not the page for WD policy discussions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
user:billinghurst But if was a place to claim things about me that are irrelevant for checkuser, e.g. " while edits are constructive at beginning, he often ends up in disagreement with other users" . Still no answer to the breach of privacy. FreightXPress (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mardetanha: You wrote "Per my CU in loginwiki and wikidata and based on previously stored information in CUwiki, FreightXPress is Confirmed Confirmed sock." - What connection was confirmed? Last edit of Tamawashi was in July 2014. How does that fit with sueing NSA for mass surveillance if Wikimedia stores user data for that long? http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/ ? Are you not afraid of being sued personally? There are certainly editors that are happy to sue. FreightXPress (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't want to wade into this, because I think that there might be legitimate concerns with this check. However, if you continue to do anything even hinting of being a legal threat, you will no longer be welcome to participate here. Thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ivan Shmakov@ru.wikibooks

@Ruslik0: Are you able to assist here?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand what the requester wants from us. He did not state any reason for the check, moreover none of the accounts above (except Ivan Shmakov) even exists on ruwikibooks. I suggest denying this request. Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Ivan Shmakov. Sorry for the request. My mistake. Oleg3280 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done ruWP has their own checkusers, there is no reason for stewards to have an involvement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mpb_eu@bg.wikipedia 2

The IP ranges should actually be read as 149.62.192.0/18 and 212.5.158.0/24, which are used for the GPRS/3G clients of two Bulgarian MNOs, and thus are perhaps not very helpful (although I've noticed a tendency for the users who try to avoid bans to go for the mobile networks for some reason: probably because in that way they are guaranteed either a public proxy address or a dynamic one). 212.5.131.* is trickier, as it doesn't have a separate record, but since it's part of a larger pool, 212.5.128.0/19, belonging to one of those two operators, and the two neighbouring networks, .130.0/24 and .132.0/24, are assigned to different subjects, I assume it's used again for the GPRS/3G clients as 212.5.131.0/24. As for 84.252.39.52, it also seems to be a dynamic address, in the 84.252.32.0/20 network, which is operated by a (terrestrial) cable television provider. — Luchesar • T/C 12:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added another suspicious user, Княз Войвода, who popped up today. And just FYI, there's also a new range of addresses likely used for ban evasion: unsurprisingly, another dynamic pool, 79.100.48.0/20, in itself part of the larger pool 79.100.0.0/17. Unfortunately, this IP range is even less telling, since it's probably the largest end-user ISP. We'll deal with the anonymous edits locally, but confirming all the registered sockpuppets (probably there are more than the already listed) will indeed be very helpful. — Luchesar • T/C 12:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed Mpb eu, Полк. Дянко Марков, AKSKubrat
Unrelated Unrelated Христо Зарев Игнатов, Княз Войвода
@Iliev: results for your community  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, indeed! — Luchesar • T/C 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)