||Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 December 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Spambots on Wikispecies
- List of users
- Beth35Q8010221 ([[
- Special:Contributions/Beth35Q8010221|contr]] · [[
- Special:DeletedContributions/Beth35Q8010221|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
- ErmaLara2493638 ([[
- Special:Contributions/ErmaLara2493638|contr]] · [[
- Special:DeletedContributions/ErmaLara2493638|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
- JuliaMcCormack1 ([[
- Special:Contributions/JuliaMcCormack1|contr]] · [[
- Special:DeletedContributions/JuliaMcCormack1|deleted]] · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
Reason(s): I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue but it would be interesting to see if the underlying IPs of these spambot accounts are open proxies. Korg
) 06:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've locked all three as they are definitely spambots. The accounts are not obviously linked and they don't appear to be open proxies. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Korg (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done We do not identify users with ip addresses. Ruslik (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Status: Not done
- List of users
- ManosHacker (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
- 126.96.36.199 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
There are strong reasons to believe that this user and the ip are related. ManosHacker made a comment in an article deletion discussion. A few hours later, the ip made a rude comment in the same discussion. Being suspicious, I asked the anonymous user to make the comment with their account (without deleting it). After that, ManosHacker left a message at the local Administrators' noticeboard, requesting for an admonition on me, as my comment was "against Wikipedia guidelines on behavior towards anonymous users”, thus, I shouldn't have made it, even if I “thought it was a blocked user” (the article was a subject of an editwar that led to the block of another user). A few days later, the same ip appeared in another deletion discussion making a comment, that ManosHacker signed 1 minute later. Obviously, the user made the contribution accidentally while being logged-out.
Moreover, suggestions that the aforementioned user has purposely used ips in discussions have been made by another user, who observed a notable similarity in expressions of the ip's and the user's some time ago. I think it is quite obvious that ManosHacker is the one behind the ip and he has used it to provoke chaotic reactions in the community. For all the reasons mentioned above, I strongly believe that a checkuser is valid.
If you need me to provide you with any other details or need any help with translation, feel free to ask here or in my talk page.
Best regards, --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) aka: Red River
Κόκκινος Ποταμός has been spotted as chaotic, aggressive, making personal attacks and acting against policy, by the community and admins, and has been punished. In the particular incident of "notable similarity" he persistently erased ip contributions fetching sources in a discussion page for a deletion of an article, by these edit summaries:
, which were followed by the "notable similarity" comment that revealed to old users the id of the ip. Another user spotted it first so we missed the chance to prove Κόκκινος Ποταμός to be an old user.
Around this behavior of his, there has been this A.N. discussion where, even if he was shown by users to be out of limits and policy, he insisted in revealing of the ip's identity, and got a light punishment for breaking the 3RR only. Since then we have to spot his bad behavior early, but he is still out of control from time to time, leading to edit wars and disruption, using flaming comments.
The "rude comment" mentioned above is really pointing to rudeness of editors towards a living person in the talk page of his article and is not rude itself, but Κόκκινος Ποταμός once again asks (rudely) for the ip comment to be signed.
--ManosHacker (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am utterly surprised that ManosHacker is using this page to attack me personally. These accusations belong nowhere else than the local Admins' noticeboard and they should be discussed there (if they haven't already). This is a checkuser request page and this is a valid request. Comments like the previous one should be considered misleading. On the other hand, the evidence I've brought to you above is undisputable and technical confirmation is required, so the community can address the problem without any doubt. If ManosHacker believes that other users, inclunding me, use puppets, he is free to request a checkuser. Thank you for your time. --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, please, notice that the user is not denying that it was him who made the rude comment with the ip and later mentioned me with his account at the Admins' noticeboard. --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruslik0: I beg your pardon, but I am aware of at least one case, during which the checkuser was able to link a user with an IP ("I have done this anyway to check if any more abuse had been taking place"). Why isn't there the ability to execute the procedure in this case? --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see any reason for this check. Ruslik (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- lol.@Ruslik0:AzorAhai(Sunfyre) and مهرنگار in fa@wiki inserted her vote (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2016/Mardetanha)
see Contributions (مهرنگار)
Only vote!--123~metawiki (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. For requesting a check on Meta, use Meta:Requests for CheckUser information. It's not possible to check an edit from February. Data is not stored that long. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. En.wikipedia has local checkusers that will handle the request. You need to request a check on en.wiki. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tegel: Please link(en.wiki)? Please now moved ):request--123~metawiki (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't change the status of the case. At the top of this page under the headline "Before making a request" at item 3 there is a link to the relevant page on en.wikipedia. -- Tegel (Talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tegel: w:en:Hootan Dolati farsi: w:fa:هوتن دولتی He is more active in fa.wiki. How do the two "fa""en" Wiki request Checkuser? Here done better! Because there are not Checkuser fa.Wiki--123~metawiki (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fa.wiki has local checkusers that is active. When there is local users that can do the task we can't do it based on policy. Place your request for fa.wiki check on fa.wiki. -- Tegel (Talk) 13:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Check CheckUser policy to see who to contact on fa.wiki. -- Tegel (Talk) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Acacio De Almeida@en.wikisource
- Confirmed. I've already blocked the IP range with an expiry time of three months as there is a huge amount of sockpuppets on it, though there may be a small collateral damage. Please pay attention on this. Regards, RadiX∞ 13:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Group 1: Criminal Angel, Κροβρεντζίδο, Μολύβι, Δύο χιλιάδες δεκαέξι and Μπαλάνος: all Confirmed. Βάσω is Likely the same user.
Group 2: ΣΕ ΘΕΛΩ and Giorgos456 are Likely the same user.
Group 1 and Group 2: Possible.
Regards, RadiX∞ 04:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
User:RadiX, Κροβρεντζίδο and ΣΕ ΘΕΛΩ are confirmed as puppets by duck test (these two accounts are the only to have mentioned the same non-existing political party, among many other behavior traits). Thanks for the other users revealed. --C messier (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Maxus96@ro.wikipedia and Random20161229@ro.wikipedia
Unlikely. RadiX∞ 04:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmed. No sleepers found. RadiX∞ 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks User:RadiX --AntanO 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)