Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-12

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 December 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests

Илия от Шумен@bg.wikipedia

Pinging some colleagues who might want to follow this.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I added 2 more accounts with similar edits, although there is not much point to list them since there are hundreds of them being blocked everyday. The harassment from these accounts, who originally spawned from the users bg:User:Модернатор and bg:User:Администратор has grown in the last few months and hasn't stopped from almost a year now, despite all the measures the administrators have taken against it, so far little has helped.--The Wiki Boy (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that revealing even vague personal info—and even in cases of harassment—might be an uncomfortable matter for you (and I appreciate this). Could you please check instead for any sleeper socks missed by our AI bot before those accounts slip out of the CU log? Actually, you could also use the fresh accounts here (basically anyone blocked for infinity). There is a reason I'm asking for sleepers check: the recent CU on enwiki revealed some socks, who on bgwiki had played the Good Samaritan, but which I've still suspected to be sleepers for a long time—most likely waiting to gain trust so that they could then avoid the AI bot, abuse filters, and possibly even patrollers' attention. I sincerely hope that this request isn't going to get unanswered.
— Luchesar • T/C 12:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In particular, please do at least check the following account on bgwiki, even if you find the case as a whole so overwhelming that you couldn't be bothered with it. On our public mailing list an e-mail was received from someone claiming to be behind that account, who insisted that they had been globally locked by a steward for cross-wiki abuse without good reason. They don't seem very honest, but it is also a fact that so far they've been making only good edits (though mostly trivial, so it may have been a trick to gain trust):
Thanks,
— Luchesar • T/C 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, from a technical point of view it seems there are two different masterpuppets, I took the necessary action you may want to "localize". --Vituzzu (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

张云飞@zh-classical.wikipedia

 Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ΕΝΑΣ ΝΤΕΛΙΚΑΝΗΣ@el.wikipedia

 Confirmed--Vituzzu (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

哲涵@zh-classical.wikipedia

WAN233 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

哲涵 and CarbonicAcid are  Confirmed. Account 林浚輝 does not exist. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@WAN233: Did you mean 林浚辉 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)? --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It should be Special:CentralAuth/林浚辉--J.Wong 10:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
林浚辉 is also  Confirmed. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Barçamaniya@az.wikipedia

Likely Likely the same user. There are other accounts Likely Likely belonging to them like Azərbaycanın şəhidləri. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hatake@sq.wikipedia

 Confirmed Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sci-fi@en.wikiversity

  • Mark Bowman (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) locked as cross-wiki vandal, might not be stale. Last edits (one rev-del'd) create relatively weak suspicion. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 82.132.226.145 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) repeating common LTA arguments.
  • 74.175.117.25 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) claims to be a wikipedia user in good standing, but voting anonymously in request for deletion.
  • 82.132.238.67 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)
  • All (or almost all) of these are pursuing a declared agenda of retaliation for documenting the LTA's massive and highly abusive socking. (This also includes off-wiki harassment, but nothing can be done about that here, except that some of these accounts link to it. More details on request.) --Abd (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 82.132.223.81 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) per suggestion by Wikiversity administrator. --Abd (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not done, no need for checkuser to be used here. We cannot comment on the IP --> account connections, and all accounts have been appropriately dealt with where they are active. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • * Thank you for your response! I noticed in w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev that IPs as well as user names were mentioned as confirmed sock puppets. Can you or checkuser confirm if any of the IPs above are sockpuppets of any of the other IPs? --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    While I could check for their user agents, I don't believe a checkuser is necessary in this case. Blocking of the IPs can be done based on behavioural evidence. The checkuser extension won't provide you with much information here, unfortunately. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    FYI: User:Abd has been warned that "excessive, frivolous, and nuisance abuse of checkuser requests" cross-wiki will result in a local block on en-wv.[8] Please inform us if any such activity occurs so that we may implement local sanctions. This request was not submitted with local consensus on behalf of our community. --mikeu talk 12:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    I have submitted an extensive series of checkuser requests, all but this one resulted in global locks. This is the only one that was rejected, and while I disagree with Ajraddatz that no useful information is possible, see this proposal for a tool that would automate what is possible, I had accepted the decision. Being accused of filing frivolous requests, with the history that exists here, is appalling. The many requests and results were documented in User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist which has been deleted, out of process, but any steward or local admin can read it. There had been no complaint on meta about frivolous requests, and local consensus is not required to ask for checkuser, particularly where cross-wiki disruption is involved. (Local consensus is also not required to ask for checkuser on wikis where they have checkusers.) If it is, I'd appreciate being informed of it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    Δαφνοστεφανωμένος@el.wikipedia

    Comment Comment Would it be possible to add, also, user DiogenesLaertios ? I'm asking this addition, because it happens to be a user with a quite similar writting pattern with blocked user Vrahomarinaner, same interests and same editing wars with the same user (user Τζερονυμο). Maybe, we could wait a little in order to wait for further evidence but, except the creation of this article, everything else in his contributions and confrontations and editing wars with other users is typically in the Vrahomarinaner type of contributions. Also, we are speaking, here, about a user who was rather innactive until today, where he's making one contribution after another and only when other user Vrahomarinaner sockpuppets are absent or blocked. Thanks in advance. --Fleur de lys (or).svg Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! συζήτηση 18:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

     Confirmed for anyone except DiogenesLaertios, Unrelated Unrelated for DiogenesLaertios. Finally, Vagiopoulos may be related, but I suggest not to block if there are no behavior evidences. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Dr.P.Saravanan@ta.wikipedia

    The second account is stale but "Dr.P.Saravanan M.D.," has another sock - Drpsaravanan1. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you!--AntanO 01:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

    162.217.133.122/24@en.wikipedia

    I'm not a steward, but unless I'm reading this wrong or not understand it correctly, this is a matter of the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has its own CheckUsers with its own request page. In that case its not something they can handle (policy-wise) The request should then be made on the English Wikipedia on that page. --Wiki13 talk 01:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    This issue is not only in English but also in Malay and Japanese, so I do not think it is something that English can handle.--익명을주고 싶다 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, then I might have misunderstood that part by not reading correctly. But my point about CheckUsers on the English Wikipedia still stands. Stewards cannot handle request on wiki's that have their own set of CheckUsers to handle requests and investigations. --Wiki13 talk 02:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done This is a matter for English Wikipedia. For cross-wiki checks the request is not specific enough. Ruslik (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)