Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 August 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests[edit]

Yenyenszx@fr.wikiquote[edit]

 Confirmed. No other accounts found. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

My Royal Young@tl.wikipedia[edit]

Unnecessary Unnecessary: All accounts were already checked and locked per request at SRG. RadiX 11:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Κόκκινος Ποταμός@el.wikipedia[edit]

This request is simply abusive fishing. The user either doesn't know or doesn't mention that clearly me and user:kalogeropoulos are distinct and known as distinct persons irl to other wikipedians. Both e.g. have been witnesses in court in the greek wikipedia katsanevas case. Gts-tg thinks that the anouncement in greek village pump of his disruptive request is a bad thing, as if checkuser is meant to be a secretive process.

I have trust in stewards to do this checkuser even if it is obviously disruptive and abusive. Please do it if kalogeolropoulos also doesn't mind. Ah3kal.mobile (talk)

Ofcourse I don't mind--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As per the request's description, Ah3kal and Kalogeropoulos are separate users, what is requested is to check that the Κόκκινος Ποταμός account is or is not a sockpupet account being used between the said 2 users. With regards to the current CU there has been a public announcement in the el Village Pump by another user who is against the request made for the users involved, this is being checked locally to see whether it constitutes canvassing. Please proceed with the CU here without any distractions, it really is important that this is checked in detail to confirm or rule out what is being described. Gts-tg (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User Ah3kal also asked me to ask the CheckUsers to not waste time investigating him and Kalogeropoulos because there are a lot of people that know them well both diff (el). Whoever is working on the current CU request please cross check with other colleagues if possible. Gts-tg (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Added Ah3kal.mobile to be checked as well (only against Κόκκινος Ποταμός activity), as Ah3kal is using this separate account as well. Gts-tg (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Gts-tg fails to mention that the users that had strong suspicions (the link he provides above, of the ridiculous accusations) had apologized back then (apart from him) and following my (apparently wrong, as is clear from this situation here) wish not to continue for the shake of not disrupting further the community, the case was closed.—Ah3kal (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This case is worrying. An el.wikipedia sysop is accusing a fellow sysop and a global sysop of sharing an account. Either way, there are serious implications. --Rschen7754 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rschen7754, user Κόκκινος Ποταμός has been accused as being a puppet of 7 (or more, I can't be bothered to count anymore) users (4 el.wiki admins 1 wikinews admin and me amongst them), and all accusations being void and at least ridiculous with no evidence. I was the 4th or 5th to be accused back in December by two users, one of which was blocked some days before that for using both his account and an IP in order to set a trap to Κόκκινος Ποταμός, and obviously "proving" that this said user was me, would boost back his reputation after his transgression. Their basic "evidence" was that I went off-line after mid-June 2016 (an absence I had already foretold in my global sysop election, as it was due to the birth of my child). Both of them realized the ridiculousness of the accusation and apologized, and then out of nowhere Gts-tg accused me again. Not wanting payback, I choose, since noone else paid him any attention, to let this go for the shake of not disrupting the community just to go after those who accused me, and thought that Gts-tg also realized his mistake. (I even voted him for admin a month ago!) As soon as he became admin he started abusing the tools blocking people that voted against him, or that he had history with (showing a very strong will to block Κόκκινος Ποταμος, even returning after 25 days of absense-possibly due to the critisims-just to block him). All of his blocks were undone and he was heavily criticized, and what a "surprise", me and kalogeropoulos where amongst those who critisized his actions. So without any discussion anywhere, without providing any evidence, and lying about tha former accusations (he failed to mention that the other two had apologized) he accused us here. When another user reported his actions here to the vilage pump where he was criticized once again, he reported that said user at ANI for canvassing and disruption! He even said that if the result is negative he wouldn't tell anything, having an attitude about his accusation "that it isn't anything big" and wondering why I loose my cool! It's worth mentioning that one of the two users that accused me first (ManosHacker) demanded a checkuser about Κόκκινος Ποταμός through the affiliations committee, done by Vituzzu, and beeing negative. He (ManosHacker) never announced the results. The other user (Αντικαθεστωτικός formerly Istoria1944) accused anyone that he could thing of being sock master of Κόκκινος Ποταμός. Of course as you understand, there are serious implications. —Ah3kal (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There are some serious assertions made above that regardless of what I think of their veracity are nonetheless indicative of the great divide that the Κόκκινος Ποταμός account has been causing to the community. I suggest composure at this point until the CU is completed, and to not draw any more users into this. As for the previous CU made on Κόκκινος Ποταμός a few months ago I was not aware that one had been made as it was hidden/non public. Gts-tg (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if my word here matters at all, as the user making the request accuses me of not being a real person! I confirm every single word Ah3kal says above. The only thing I want to provide you with is the request made by me for ManosHacker last December, just so you get the full picture of this case and the cause of disruption in el.wiki in general. I am confident that after this travesty is over, the Greek Community will be in position to solve the problem once and for all. --Κόκκινος Ποταμός (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, now I can make a new check, resulting in an obvious "unrelated". But then? Would we be asked to check all Greek users one by one? But also, what about countries where Greek is also spoken? Luckly Ancient Greek is way different from Modern Greek, otherwise we should expect to be asked to check thousands of users from half Europe where Ancient Greek is studied. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Vituzzu can you please specify what your comment is about? The request that the other user is referring to just above your comment, this request, or something else entirely? What does the commentary about modern and ancient Greek or checking all users one by one have to do in anything with the current request? Has the check been completed for this request and if so is the result unrelated? Please confirm. Or do you mean that a check has not yet been made for this request, but you can make one anyhow? What is going to be obviously unrelated? Please clarify. Gts-tg (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Long standing Greek users are periodically accused of being Κόκκινος Ποταμός, I'm wondering when these allegations will end. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, longstanding users are not exempt from CU, and there have been cases of long standing users having been caught red handed and have had a propensity to do so, there is a link in the initial request that I wonder if it was read at all. Furthermore this is the first CU request made here against the particular user, if you are referring to a single private one that was made in April by someone else who was not an el administrator, it involved some other users and its existence only became known after this request was opened. So in this case you have an el admin making a request, about a user that has been causing loads of trouble in the el wiki, and instead of simply staying impartial and stating that you will not run a check because of such and such reasons incompatible with what CU is about, or that you run a check and there was nothing found or there was something found, you instead determined before checking anything at all that a check will result in an obvious unrelated, expressed some irony about checking Greek users one by one, offered your pop impression of ancient Greek and modern Greek, and finished it off with wondering when these allegations will end. I am wondering when these allegations will end too, and how they will end, when there is such a poor handling of a CU request as above. Gts-tg (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Trying to be very very patient I'll put it in another way: we don't want to second such a climate of suspect in el.wiki.
You're missing some points:
  • users with a decent knowledge of CU can always trick it. CU is not a magic wand.
  • CU usually can find links, without excluding them
  • my investigation in April found no users related to Κόκκινος Ποταμός, this may mean three things:
    • Κόκκινος Ποταμός is a "well planned" sockpuppet
    • Κόκκινος Ποταμός is a sockpuppet of someone not active for a certain time (roughly before January 2017)
    • Κόκκινος Ποταμός is not a sockpuppet
  • if Κόκκινος Ποταμός brings so much disruption -which was confirmed by you- why aren't them already blocked?
If both Kalogeropulos and Ah3kal second your request it means any check wouldn't show any relationship with Κόκκινος Ποταμός, but I don't expect requests about Κόκκινος Ποταμός to end after. This is a problem which must be handled in the "old way", with a simple and "straightforward" block.
--Vituzzu (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
How are you trying to not support a bad climate from the moment that instead of stating something clear and to the point (either one of won't do, confirmed, unrelated) you start with saying that a check will obviously result in unrelated and making general commentary about unrelated issues? How? Furthermore, CU not being a magic wand and CU not being immune to users with high expertise does not mean that CU should not be used, nor that at least one CU should exist. Even so, if you had started with the post above, it would have been light years better (as at least it contains some useful tips and insights) than the ones you started with. Now the request is completely bombed, gone, forget about it. Anyway the questions are rhetorical, there is nothing more to be said here. Gts-tg (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Questions are not rethorical, you obviously can refuse to answer, but they are not rethorical at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I am referring to the questions within my own post, obviously, not questions within your own post. If you are actually asking me why are they not blocked (that's the only question I see) and the question is not rhetorical, the answer is that you can easily see for yourself that there are blocks from time to time but the problem is more serious than what a block will take care of. Anyway it is very clear that there is nothing productive to be done here, the request is gone, and I am disengaging from the discussion as I sense that there is both bad faith and the wrong basis to build upon. If you have any further questions you know where to find me. Gts-tg (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Bad faith??? --Vituzzu (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously. Gts-tg (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've eventually done it in order to prevent further distrust from spreading. As expected they are Unrelated Unrelated and no blatant Κόκκινος Ποταμός's sockpuppets can be seen nor Kalogeropulos and Ah3kal seem to have any. I hope we won't be asked to go on fishing around this issue which I still think must be handled in the "classical" way. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, now you've done it, haven't you? Great, thanks. The issue will be handled internally, and rest assured you won't be asked by me again, obviously. Gts-tg (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of asking "me" but "us". This CU hadn't been done for a while not because of laziness but because CU is not meant to be used this way.--Vituzzu (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Mmm mm, sure, thanks. Gts-tg (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mariapetrescuu@ro.wikipedia[edit]

Unrelated Unrelated while Eugenpetre0802 is a sock, from a technical point of view, of Mariapetrescuu's. The kind of link you're suggesting can be proven for Sealview27. I've also crossed Ourcnetwork which has a few similarities to Sealview27. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ashishsharma.in@hi.wikipedia[edit]

None of the accounts you list are blocked and Smoothest Aashu does not have edits. Fishing CheckUser is not for fishing. Could you please expand a bit why do you think those accounts are related? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 08:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Main 3 account Ashishsharma.in, TheINDIA and Ankitsharma3003 used wiki for self promotion. he created his own article named smoothest ashu on hindi wikipedia. also he doing as same on english wikipedia. we deleted this article but user TheINDIA created it agin. also this 3 account make comment for save this article. so this spam activity. also, user TheiNDIA new account but he act like old user. also he did some RFA: so we think this account is someone's shockpapet. we found smoothest ashu created 12 plus account on enwiki. this account is part of this many account. also use it for self promotion.--आर्यावर्त (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Steward, Sir We are in Waiting.-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Marco Sir, User:TheIndia changed his username to User:VSR07. Please do checkuser. We are still in waiting.-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently short of time. Any steward can take care of this request if they so desires. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Marco Sir, you have updated status as not done. but do not write any comment about result. check user is done? same account not found? or any other reason?--आर्यावर्त (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Check is not done as no one wishes to handle this apparently. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

!--आर्यावर्त (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to be alarmed. I already asked my other colleagues to have a look at this one on June. I guess I'll ask them again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Jyothis Ping. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed Technical evidence is strong in suggesting the following two accounts are the same or related.

VSR07@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

H-DHAMI@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

PunjabPunjab@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

Noor Randhawa@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

  • Inconclusive Inconclusive

Ashishsharma.in@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

Ankitsharma3003@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

  • Stale

Smoothest Aashu@hi.wikipedia (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser CentralAuth AllContribs)

-- Avi (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gold Kan@sh.wiki[edit]

@Edgar Allan Poe: We do not run checkuser preemptively. Please inform the reason why you think there is evidence for block evasion going on there. RadiX 14:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated earlier, the evidence I am basing my request on are as follows:
  1. A similar edit pattern on articles, namely removing relevant content and adding chauvinistic nonsense (Vojvođani);
  2. The pattern of copying other users pages and doing nothing but changing colours, already done in an earlier example (w:sh:Korisnik:Geologichar);
  3. The use of a specific dialect of Serbian full of grammatical errors, and quite similar errors to add to that, that has only been used by him on earlier occasions;

The user has long been inactive and based on the evidence presented, there is a certain doubt that it might be a block evasion from a permanently blocked user with a history of malicious edits. If this evidence doesn't suffice, I shall reiterate this request at a later stage, if necessary. Thank you --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the blocked account is Stale (logs are old), there are no recent data available to compare with. Technical evidence here is Inconclusive Inconclusive, but I tend to Unrelated Unrelated. RadiX 18:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Пугачов Иван@ru.wikipedia[edit]

X mark.svg Not done Russian Wikipedia has its own checkusers. Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(TIB ... pattern accounts[edit]

Hi, billinghurst. The aforementioned accounts belong to the long-term vandal 118 alex. Relevant data has been stored at checkuserwiki and some ranges of IP addresses are already blocked. RadiX 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)